[0:19] >> WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APRIL 14, 2025. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M THE [0:25] CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK STAFF TO CALL THE ROLL TO FIND A QUORUM. [0:30] >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> HERE. >> CAMPBELL IS ABSENT. [0:43] CHOWDHURY. >> HERE. >> GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES. >> HERE. >> MEYER. [0:49] >> HERE. >> SKJEFTE. [0:56] >> HERE. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW A QUORUM IS PRESENT. NEXT WE'LL DO THE MINUTES FROM [1:05] MARCH 24, 2025. THEY'VE BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [1:13] OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THOSE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. NEXT WE'LL PROCEED TO ORGANIZE OUR AGENDA. I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE [1:18] DIFFERENT AGENDA ITEMS. IF YOU WERE HERE TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE ITEMS OR YOU WANTED TO [1:24] SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THEN LET US KNOW AS I READ IT OFF. [1:29] THE STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ALL OF OUR ITEMS BE ON CONSENT EXCEPT FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR. [1:38] SO ITEM NUMBER 4, 1501 JOHNSON STREET NORTHEAST, WE WILL DISCUSS THAT ONE. [1:46] ITEM NUMBER FIVE 1801 JAMES [1:58] AVENUE NORTH. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE? [2:03] OKAY, WE'LL HAVE THAT ITEM ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 6, 3010, 3016, AND [2:15] 3020 12th AVENUE SOUTH. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? I SEE THREE, SO WE WILL DISCUSS. [2:20] ITEM SEVEN, A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM [2:26] SEVEN? THAT WILL BE ON CONSENT. AND ITEM EIGHT, ANOTHER ZONING [2:32] CODE TEXT AMENDMENT. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? [2:38] ALL RIGHT, WE'LL HAVE THAT ON CONSENT. SO TO REVIEW, WE WILL DISCUSS [2:46] ITEMS 4 AND 6. ITEMS 5, 7, AND 8 WILL BE ON [2:52] CONSENT AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE WILL HAVE A RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN OUTGOING COMMISSIONER. [2:58] IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [3:04] >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THAT AGENDA IS APPROVED. [3:12] SO STARTING OFF WITH ITEM NUMBER 4, 1501 JOHNSON STREET [3:18] NORTHEAST. STAFF IS ALEX KOHLHAAS. SORRY, IS DIFFERENT STAFF [3:23] PRESENTING THIS ONE? SORRY -- SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC [3:29] HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. DID ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO ANY [3:35] OF OUR CONSENT ITEMS? [3:41] ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE [3:50] CONSENT AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? [3:56] ABSTENTIONS? THAT IS ADOPTED. AND NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM [4:03] NUMBER FOUR. [4:20] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN ITEM FOR [4:26] THE PROPERTY OF 1501 JOHNSON STREET NORTHEAST. THIS IS TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY [4:33] COMMERCIAL BUILDING INTENDED FOR A NEW GROCERY STORE AND CHILDCARE CENTER USES. THERE ARE SEVERAL LAND USE [4:39] APPLICATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED AND BEFORE YOU TODAY. THIS INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE [4:47] FUTURE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM TRANSIT TEN TO [4:53] CORRIDOR FOUR. SUBSEQUENTLY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY RETAINING THE CM2 [5:00] PRIMARY DISTRICT. TWO VARIANCES, ONE RELATED TO ONE OF OUR OFF-STREET PARKING [5:06] REGULATIONS AND ANOTHER RELATING TO BUSINESS SIGNAGE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. I WILL NOTE AN EARLIER ITERATION [5:13] OF THIS PROPOSAL WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. AND I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION AT [5:19] THAT TIME FOCUSED ON THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED TO HYPOTHETICALLY A VARIANCE TO THE [5:25] MINIMUM F.A.R. REQUIREMENTS SO I'LL COME BACK TO THAT TOPIC IN A MINUTE. [5:30] I'LL NOTE THE APPLICANT HAS INCORPORATED THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE LAST YEAR INTO THE PROPOSAL ALONG [5:36] WITH OTHER FEEDBACK FROM CITY STAFF AND NOW THEY'RE PURSUING THEIR LAND USE APPLICATIONS AS NECESSARY. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SUBJECT [5:42] PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS, JUST A REGULAR TEARDROP-SHAPED [5:48] PARCEL WITH A LOT AREA OF JUST UNDER 98,000 SQUARE FEET. [5:53] THE MOST RECENTLY ESTABLISHED USE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN AS A CONTCTOR'S YARD. ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY [5:58] IS ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH JOHNSON STREET TO THE WEST. OTHER SIDES OF THE PROPERTY ARE A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING [6:05] FOR THE I-35W ENTRANCE RAMP. THERE'S A MIX OF LAND USES AND DENSITIES IN THE SURROUNDING [6:11] AREAS, INCLUDING A PUBLIC PARK. YOU HAVE SOME LOW DENSITY [6:16] RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. TO THE EAST OF I-35W RIGHT OF [6:21] WAY I MENTIONED. TO THE SOUTHEAST ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE IS A [6:26] CONCENTRATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION USES. HERE'S THE PRIMARY ZONING MAP FOR THE AREA. AND YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT [6:32] PROPERTY IN THAT CM2 ZONING ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE QUARRY SHOPPING CENTER TO THE [6:42] NORTHEAST AND THE VARIETY YOU SEE IN THE ZONING MAP REFLECTS THE VARIETIES OF USES AND DENSITIES THAT I MENTIONED. [6:49] BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP SHOWS A SIMILAR VARIETY AND AGAIN I'LL NOTE THE BUILT FORM [6:54] OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES YOU SEE HERE GENERALLY ALIGN WITH [6:59] THE FUTURE BUILT FORM MAP IN THE 2040 PLAN. THE T.O. INCLUDING THE SUBJECT [7:04] PROPERTY AND THE QUARRY, THAT'S ALL TRANSIT TEN. THE GREEN AND TAN TO THE WEST OF [7:10] THAT IS INTERIOR PARKS OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CORRIDOR FOUR, THAT'S THE ORANGE [7:15] YOU SEE TOWARDS THE TOP CENTER ALONG JOHNSON STREET. [7:22] CONTINUING NORTH OF 18th. HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN [7:27] FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS IS ORIENTED WITH NORTH TO THE LEFT. AGAIN THE PROPOSAL IS A [7:34] TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR A GROCERY STORE AND A CHILDCARE CENTER. THEY ARE PROPOSING A TOTAL OF [7:40] 100 PARKING SPACES WHICH WOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO PARKING AREAS, ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE [7:46] BUILDING. AND OTHER ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A LOADING DOCK AND OTHER ON SITE RETENTION AREAS, [7:53] ET CETERA. SOME FLOOR PLANS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. ON THE BOTTOM IS THE MAIN LEVEL WHICH IS PRIMARILY THAT GROCERY [7:59] STORE TENANT PLUS SOME SPACE FOR THE DAYCARE. AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN, THAT [8:05] IS ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE DAYCARE. TWO OF THE PROPOSED ELEVATION [8:11] DRAWINGS, SO THE TOP IS THE NORTH ELEVATION WHICH WOULD FACE THE LARGER OF THE TWO PARKING AREAS. AND THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN IS [8:18] THE WEST ELEVATION WHICH WOULD FACE JOHNSON STREET. ONE ASPECT OF THE PLANS I DO [8:24] JUST WANT TO DESCRIBE IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL RELATES TO SOME PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO BUS TRANSIT. [8:31] THIS WOULD BE ALONG JOHNSON STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THERE IS AN EXISTING STOP TOWARDS THE SOUTH END OF THE [8:39] PROPERTY. AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL INCLUDES RELOCATING THAT BUS STOP CLOSER TO THE CENTER OF THE [8:45] SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO MAKE SOME ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THAT. YOU CAN SEE ON THE PORTION OF [8:52] THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY CALL IT A BUS SHELTER. IN THE RENDERING YOU CAN SEE [8:57] THAT SHELTER AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS LIKE REALTIME TRANSIT INFO, A DISPLAY BOARD. [9:03] THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ADD A MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK IN THIS AREA AS WELL. [9:10] JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS A LITTLE BIT AND MOSTLY NOTE THAT WHAT YOU SEE ON THE PLANS HERE, THIS REFLECTS THE APPLICANT'S [9:17] INITIAL PROPOSAL REGARDING THIS MANNER. [9:23] THESE ASPECTS OF THE PLANS ARE NOT FINAL. AT THIS TIME FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY BETWEEN THE [9:28] APPLICANTS, CPED STAFF, PUBLIC WORKS STAFF, AND METRO TRANSIT [9:34] TO IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE RELATED TO BUS TRANSIT SERVICES TO THIS AREA IN THE SHORT TERM AND THE [9:40] LONG TERM. I'LL ALSO JUST NOTE THIS PROPOSAL, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAND [9:47] USE APPLICATION FOR A MINOR TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, EXCUSE ME. IT'S EXPECTED THAT ON SITE BUS [9:52] MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE A PART OF THE REVIEW AND DECISION FOR THAT APPLICATION. [9:58] SO NOW TO FOCUS ON THE LAND USE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE [10:04] REZONING, AFTER THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON PARTS OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS WHERE STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. [10:11] I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANYTHING ELSE UPON QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. [10:17] AGAIN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THAT FUTURE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM [10:22] TRANSIT TEN TO CORRIDOR FOUR. AND THEN TO SUBSEQUENTLY REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM THE TRANSIT [10:28] TEN TO CORRIDOR FOUR BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICT. THESE ACTIONS WOULD MITIGATE ONE [10:35] SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE AT ISSUE, THAT IS THE MINIMUM FLOOR [10:40] AREA REQUIREMENT. IN TRANSIT TEN THE MINIMUM F.A.R. IS 1.0. IN THE CORRIDOR FOUR, THERE IS [10:46] NO MINIMUM F.A.R. REQUIREMENT AND THE PROPOSED F.A.R. IS 0.37. [10:52] SO THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE APPROVAL OF THE [10:58] BUILDING BULK THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. BEYOND THAT SPECIFIC MECHANISM [11:04] THAT'S IN PLAY HERE, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING HAVE MERIT BY ALIGNING THE BUILT FORM [11:11] GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CLOSER TO THE PARK AND THE LOW DENSITY [11:17] RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST COMPARED TO THE CURRENT [11:24] ALIGNMENT WITH THE QUARRY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY RAMPS TO THE [11:30] EAST. STAFF FINDS THE APPLICABLE FINDINGS FOR THESE TWO APPLICATIONS WOULD BE MET AND WE [11:35] RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR EACH OF THESE. ONE OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES I MENTIONED IS RELATED TO BUSINESS [11:41] SIGNAGE. JUST TO TOUCH ON THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN PLAY HERE, THE TECHNICAL TERM, WE'RE [11:47] TALKING ABOUT ON PREMISES SIGNAGE, BUSINESS SIGNAGE IS GENERALLY ONLY ALLOWED ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL WHICH IS [11:53] DEFINED AS A WALL FACING A STREET WHICH PROVIDES VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY [12:01] OR FACING A PUBLIC PATHWAY OR PARKING AREA. IN ADDITION TO SIGNS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ON SOME OF THE OTHER SIDES OF THE [12:07] BUILDING, THERE IS A PROPOSED SIGN FOR THE GROCERY STORE TENANT SHOWN ON THEIR EAST ELEVATION DRAWING. YOU CAN SEE THAT TOWARDS THE [12:14] LEFT-HAND SIDE. AND THE EAST SIDE OF THIS [12:20] BUILDING WOULD FACE THE FREEWAY ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS. IT WOULD NOT FACE THE STREET [12:25] PROVIDING DIRECT ACCESS. THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME VISIBILITY IN THIS CASE FROM [12:30] FURTHER AWAY LIKE THE SOUTHBOUND ROADWAY FROM I-35W. THIS IS NOT A PRIMARY BUILDING [12:36] WALL WHICH IS WHY THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THIS VARIANCE. [12:44] STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE PROPERTY WHICH CREATES [12:50] CHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. THE INTENT IN THE CODE AROUND [12:56] THIS TOPIC HAS A FEW DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, BUT A LARGE PART OF IT IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE [13:01] SIGNAGE THAT IS ORIENTED TO THE STREET FROM WHICH THE PROPERTY IS ACCESSED. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO FACILITATE [13:09] SIGNAGE VISIBILITY FROM FURTHER DISTANCES. ALSO JUST NOTE THIS IS A GOOGLE STREET VIEW SCREEN SHOT FROM 35. [13:16] THIS IS A QUARTER TO A HALF MILE TO THE EAST. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HIGH DENSITY OF EXISTING BUSINESS [13:22] SIGNAGE IN THIS AREA AND EVERY PROPERTY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAY APPLY DIFFERENTLY. [13:28] FOR EXAMPLE THE QUARRY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE SIGNAGE FACING THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR PARKING IS ON THAT SIDE. [13:37] SO SOME OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. BUT THIS KIND OF SHOWS THAT THE HIGH DENSITY OF SIGNAGE IN THIS [13:44] AREA DETERMINED IN THE ZONING CODE FOR ONE OF THOSE FINDINGS IS SIGN CLUTTER, AND STAFF DOES [13:49] FIND THAT THIS PROPOSED SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS HIGH DENSITY OF SIGNAGE IN [13:56] THIS AREA AND CONTRIBUTES TO POTENTIAL DISTRACTIONS FOR DRIVERS IN THIS AREA INCLUDING [14:03] THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THE [14:08] NECESSARY FINDINGS ARE MET FOR THE SIGN VARIANCE AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL. [14:15] NOW TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. MANY ASPECTS OF THIS PROPOSAL WOULD COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE [14:20] SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. BUT THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FOUR [14:26] ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUESTS SO I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY. FIRST, THERE WOULD BE ONE BLANK WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS [14:33] BUILDING. IT WOULD EXTEND 31 FEET IN LENGTH. IT WOULD BE LOCATED JUST BEHIND THOSE BUS TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS I [14:40] MENTIONED. THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL ARTIST MURAL [14:45] INSTALLED ON THIS BLANK WALL. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THIS REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE [14:51] COMPLIANCE CONSIDERING THAT PROPOSAL BY THE CLIENT. ONE OF THE GENERAL LANDSCAPING [14:57] AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, SO BASED ON THEIR PROPOSED DESIGN, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 30 [15:04] CANOPY TREES ON SITE. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 27 WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES. THEY'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE [15:09] 147 SHRUBS ON SITE AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 126 WITHIN THE [15:15] PROPERTY LINES. I WILL NOTE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE SUBJECT [15:20] PROPERTY, THEY ARE PROPOSING SOME ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS, LIKE ANOTHER TEN TREES AND 25 SHRUBS [15:27] MOSTLY TOWARDS THE BOTTOM LEFT IN TERMS OF HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT ON YOUR SCREENS HERE. [15:34] STAFF DOES RECOMMEND GRANTING THIS REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE CONSIDERING THE [15:39] UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY LINES BEING IN UNUSUAL LOCATIONS AND THERE IS [15:46] AN EXCESS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THIS LOCATION. AND STAFF DOES FIND THAT THAT [15:54] SATISFIES THE FINDINGS FOR GENERAL LANDSCAPING AND [16:00] SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. ANOTHER IS RELATED TO THE PARKING AND LOADING LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. [16:06] AS YOU KNOW ALL PARKING AREAS WITH STREET FRONTAGE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A LANDSCAPED [16:12] YARD THAT'S AT LEAST SEVEN FEET WIDE AND MEETING OTHER SPECIFICATIONS. [16:17] THEY WOULD NOT BE COMPLYING WITH THIS REQUIREMENT SPECIFICALLY IN WHAT IS THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS TOWARDS [16:22] THE BOTTOM LEFT ON YOUR SCREEN HERE. THAT 7-FOOT LANDSCAPE YARD WOULD [16:28] ESSENTIALLY BE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE LETTER OF THE LAW IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW [16:35] REQUIREMENT BUT IS SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIDER UNDER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS [16:41] GRANTING THAT. THE LAST REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE IS ANOTHER SPECIFIC [16:47] REQUIREMENT REGARDING PARKING AND LOADING LANDSCAPING SCREENING. SPECIFICALLY EACH PARKING SPACE [16:53] IS REQUIRED TO BE WITHIN 50 FEET OF AN ON SITE DECIDUOUS TREE. THERE ARE EIGHT PARKING SPACES [16:59] THAT WOULD NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND THOSE ARE IN THE SOUTHERN PARKING AREA, SO TOWARDS THE [17:06] RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN HERE. [17:11] THE PLANS DO SHOW WHAT LOOKS LIKE A TREE SYMBOL. BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY LABELED WITH ENOUGH DETAIL TO [17:16] VERIFY THAT IT SATISFIES THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. SO IT COULD JUST BE AN ISSUE WITH LABELING. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THIS [17:23] WOULD SATISFY THE FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND GRANTING THIS [17:29] PARTICULAR ITEM. WE DO HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING WITH SITE PLAN [17:34] REVIEW WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. [17:39] IN CONCLUSION, JUST A SLIDE SUMMARIZING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. [17:44] AGAIN I'M HAPPY TO GO BACK AND SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING IN MORE DETAIL INCLUDING THINGS THAT I [17:50] DIDN'T TOUCH ON SPECIFICALLY IN MY PRESENTATION. I ALSO HAVE A SLIDE LISTING ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [17:55] THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT AISLE [18:00] HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANY IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST NOTE THE FIRST TWO ARE KIND OF STANDARD BOILERPLATE [18:07] CONDITIONS THAT WE INCLUDE FOR A LOT OF THESE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. CONDITIONS 3 THROUGH 11 ARE TO [18:14] ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PLANS WHICH AS THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED, THEY DON'T EXPLICITLY [18:21] DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS SO WE JUST HAVE SOME CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED. [18:36] THERE WERE NO WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR THIS ITEM OTHER THAN A FEW DOCUMENTS PASSED ALONG BY THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR COMP PLAN AMENDMENT [18:42] ENGAGEMENT. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE IN [18:50] ATTENDANCE AT TODAY'S HEARING. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. BUT I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. [18:57] REGARDING THE SIGN, THAT IMAGE YOU SHOWED TO DEMONSTRATE THE [19:08] THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNS IN THE QUARRY, YOU'RE SAYING THIS WOULD [19:13] ADD TO THE CLUTTER? >> IN SHORT, YES. >> CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS. [19:23] SO THERE ARE SIGNS DISTRACTING PEOPLE, THAT MAY CAUSE A CRASH IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THEM? [19:28] >> THE LOGIC, YES. ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK HERE, YOU [19:35] CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS IF YOU'RE ON SOUTHBOUND I-35W GOING PASSED THE SUBJECT [19:41] PROPERTY. YOU HAVE VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXITING THE MAIN ROADWAY RIGHT AS YOU'RE GOING BY THE SUBJECT [19:50] PROPERTY. THAT IN PARTICULAR INCREASES THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM BETWEEN [19:57] VEHICLES AND HAVING THESE ADDITIONAL VISUAL DISTRACTIONS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM [20:02] INCREASES THAT POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT. >> AND ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR KIMBERLY. [20:11] WE RECENTLY HAD AN APPEAL TO THE [20:16] COUNCIL FOR A SIGN REQUEST, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THAT? >> CORRECT. YOU ALL MAY RECALL THE PLANNING [20:24] COMMISSION HEARD AN ITEM SIMILAR TO THIS WHICH WAS A VARIANCE TO HAVE A SIGN ON A NON-PRIMARY [20:31] WALL AT OTHER ASSOCIATED ADDRESSES. THAT WAS A JP MORGAN CHASE BANK SIGN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION [20:38] RECOMMENDED DENIAL, STAFF HAD A SIMILAR SET OF FINDINGS THAT THERE WAS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT CONSTITUTED A [20:44] NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY ON THE SIGN REGULATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED THE [20:49] APPLICATION. IT WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL UPHELD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON THAT AND THE SIGN WAS DENIED. [20:57] >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF [21:03] SIGNAGE ALSO, SO THESE ARE SIGNAGE ON A BUILDING. WHAT OTHER SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED ON [21:08] THE SITE? SOMETIMES THEY HAVE THE BIG [21:14] SIGNS THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE WALL SIGNS AND I'M JUST CURIOUS [21:21] BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WANT THIS FOR VISIBILITY AND TO DRAW PEOPLE TO THEIR STORE AND CLEARLY THE FREEWAY IS A GREAT [21:29] PLACE TO WAVE YOUR SIGN, RIGHT. WHAT OTHER OPTIONS -- [21:36] >> SO THEY HAVE OTHER SIGN IDEAS BEYOND WHAT'S ON THE PLANS HERE -- BUT THE ZONING CODE DOES [21:44] ALLOW OTHER TYPES OF SIGNAGE LIKE WHAT WE CALL A MONUMENT SIGN, SOMETHING THAT HAS A SOLID [21:50] BASE BUT ISN'T ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING. USUALLY IT'S RIGHT NEAR A DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR SOMETHING [21:55] LIKE THAT TO THE PARKING LOT. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY OR [22:10] IN ADDITION TO WALL SIGNS, SIGNS ATTACHED TO BUILDINGS, WHAT WE CALL A PROJECTION SIGN, SOME [22:17] PEOPLE CALL IT A BLADE SIGN THAT STICKS OUT FROM THE WALL FACE. BUT GENERALLY FOR ZONING CODE [22:23] PURPOSES, THE INTENT IS FOR THESE TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE IN THIS CASE IT'S ONE STREET THAT PROVIDES DIRECT ACCESS TO [22:29] THE PROPERTY. THE CODE IS NOT INTENDED TO [22:37] PROVIDE VISIBILITY FOR WHEN YOUR TALKING ABOUT BUSINESS SIGNAGE, THE PROPERTY THAT THE BUSINESS IS ON, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO [22:43] PROVIDE VISIBILITY SAY TO A FREEWAY EXIT RAMP, EVEN THOUGH IN THIS CASE IT IS VERY CLOSE [22:49] BY. BUT WE DO GET OTHER TYPES OF INQUIRIES FOR SIGNAGE LIKE THIS. [22:56] USUALLY THE PROPERTY IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY, WHICH IS WHY THEY WANT A BIGGER SIGN, A TALLER SIGN, SOMETHING FACING [23:01] THIS DIRECTION. BUT IT DOESN'T, IN TERMS OF STAFF ANALYSIS AND [23:07] RECOMMENDATION, IT SPEAKS TO THAT SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS A BIG PART OF THAT. [23:12] >> OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [23:20] THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. IT WAS REALLY WELL DONE AND THE WRITE UP WAS REALLY WELL DONE AS WELL. I APPRECIATE THEDETAIL. [23:25] YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS PARTICULARLY IN THE WRITE UP, ALSO IN YOUR PRESENTATION. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS [23:30] REGARDING THE T10 TO IS IT CORRIDOR FOUR COMP PLAN CHANGE AND GETTING ON BOARD WITH THAT [23:36] AND WHY THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY RESULTED ON YOU GETTING ON BOARD WITH THAT WHEN WE'VE SEEN SOME [23:42] SITES IN THE PAST THAT WENT FOR THIS AND WE KIND OF TOLD THEM TOUGH LUCK? AND AS RELATED TO THAT, DO YOU [23:47] HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT A PRECEDENT-SETTING NATURE OF THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT? [23:56] >> TO SPEAK TO THE FIRST QUESTION, I THINK THERE'S A [24:01] COUPLE OF PIECES OF THAT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP, IT SHOWS [24:06] THIS ONE LARGE TEAL AREA AS ALL OF THE TRANSIT TEN INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE QUARRY. [24:13] THAT BIG CONNECTOR IN BETWEEN THEM, THAT AREA IS NOT PRIVATE [24:19] PROPERTY, IT IS PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT FOR SYMBOLOGY AREAS GETS [24:26] THAT TEAL AREA, BUT IT HELPS VISUALLY MAKE THAT DISTINCTION [24:31] IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE QUARRY. BUT IF YOU CAN IGNORE THAT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REALLY MORE [24:36] CLOSELY CONNECTED, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON GEOGRAPHICALLY, IT SHARES A STREET WITH THE PARK [24:42] AND THE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THERE IS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, A PRECEDENT WITH CORRIDOR [24:50] 4 ALONG JOHNSON STREET TO THE NORTH, THERE'S SOME MORE TO THE SOUTHWEST ALONG BROADWAY JUST OFF SCREEN HERE. [24:59] SO SEEING THE VARIETY THAT IS IN EXISTING PROJECT DENSITY AND ON [25:05] THE BUILT OVERLAY MAP, WE COULD MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING MORE [25:11] CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST AND DIRECTLY ALIGNED WITH THE CORRIDOR FOUR IN THE NEARBY AREA. [25:18] THERE'S ALSO THE MATTER OF KIND OF THE HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AT THIS PROPERTY WHERE [25:24] THERE WAS A PREVIOUS PROPOSAL BACK IN 2019 FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LARGER BUILDING, IT WOULD HAVE [25:30] SATISFIED THAT MINIMUM F.A.R. REQUIREMENT IN THE TRANSIT TEN. [25:35] A LOT HAS HAPPENED IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD SINCE THEN. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE SPECIFIC HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT IN [25:41] GENERAL. AND THE OVERLAPPING TIMELINES OF [25:46] THAT PROJECT WITH ADOPTING THE 2040 PLAN AND THE BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICTS I THINK MAY HAVE KIND OF INFORMED THAT [25:53] CONVERSATION. IN TERMS OF PRECEDENT, ULTIMATELY WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING THESE, WE DO NEED TO EVALUATE [26:00] EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND OUR ANALYSIS FOR ANOTHER PROPERTY [26:09] COULD RESULT IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ARTICULATE. [26:16] FOR EACH PROJECT. SO THERE CAN BE SOME SHARED [26:23] CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, BUT ULTIMATELY WE DO NEED TO EVALUATE EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY. [26:29] >> AND COMMISSIONER WAGNER, IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, I THINK WE SAW AS PART OF OUR CONSENT MOTION [26:34] TONIGHT A HOST OF MAPPING UPDATES TO MINNEAPOLIS 2040. [26:42] BECAUSE WHILE WE'RE CLOSE TO PERFECT, I THINK WE CAN ADMIT THAT WE DIDN'T COMPLETELY NAIL IT ON EVERY PARCEL THE FIRST [26:48] TIME. AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WITH A SERIES OF THINGS THAT WE HAD [26:53] CONSIDERED ERRORS OR MAYBE MAPPING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAD OVERLOOKED WITH THE INITIAL [26:59] ADOPTION. THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN ERROR OR SOMETHING WE OVERLOOKED, BUT ANYTIME WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM AN APPLICANT FOR A COMP PLAN [27:06] AMENDMENT, KIND OF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASK OURSELVES IS, COULD WE HAVE DRAWN A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION HERE? [27:12] ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE PUT INTO THE ALGORITHM KIND OF LED US TO TRANSIT TEN THE FIRST [27:17] TIME. BUT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE DRAWN ANOTHER CONCLUSION HERE. THE INTENT OF THE TRANSIT TEN [27:24] DISTRICT IS TO BE APPLIED ALONG HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT ROUTES, ADJACENT TO TRANSIT STATIONS AND [27:29] NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR DOWNTOWN AND IN DOWNTOWN. THIS AS ALEX NOTED WAS LUMPED IN [27:36] WITH THE TRANSIT TEN GIVEN ITS PROXIMITY TO THE QUARRY. BUT IT DOESN'T SHARE THAT SAME [27:41] ACCESS AND THE SAME ADJACENCY TO [27:50] TRANSIT THAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER PARCELS DO. WHICH IS THE MAIN THING WE [27:56] EVALUATED IN WHETHER WE COULD DRAW A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION HERE. THE CORRIDOR FOUR WAS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT SO THAT'S WHY [28:02] YOU'RE SEEING THAT. >> THANK YOU, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? [28:08] THANK YOU, ALEX. I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK? [28:13] COME ON UP, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. [28:28] CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC. [28:33] >> IT'S HARD FOR US TALL PEOPLE. [28:39] SO THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT OUR PROJECT AT 1501 JOHNSON [28:45] NORTHEAST. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE SITE CHARACTERISTICS. EXCUSE ME, A LITTLE OVER 2.2 [28:50] ACRES AND WE'RE PROPOSING A GROCERY STORE AND A DAYCARE. [28:57] THE DAYCARE, ONE OF THE REAL ATTRIBUTES OF THIS SITE IS THE CITY PARK ACROSS THE STREET. [29:05] HENCE WE WANTED TO INCREASE TRANSIT TO THIS SITE AND PUTTING IN A CROSSWALK SO THAT WE HAVE [29:12] SAFE PASSAGE FOR THE DAYCARE KIDS TO WALK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. [29:18] SO WE WENT THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. [29:27] LENA WITH THE LOWER NORTHEAST [29:33] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WERE COMBINED. WE MET WITH LENA AND ALSO THEIR [29:40] COMMUNITY AND HOUSING LIVABILITY COMMITTEE, THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, WE DISTRIBUTED [29:48] PROJECT INFORMATION, FLYERS TO ENCOURAGE THE NEIGHBORS TO ATTEND THE PRESENTATION, AND WE [29:55] ERECTED A FOUR BY EIGHT SIGN ON THE SITE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE PROJECT. [30:02] SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO KICK OFF THIS PROJECT. IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD TO POSITIVELY DEVELOP THIS VERY [30:09] ODDLY SHAPED PARCEL. IT'S SHAPED LIKE A DOUBLE HEADED ARROW WITH EXTREME NARROW POINTS [30:14] AT EACH END WHICH MAKES PORTIONS OF THE SITE UNBUILDABLE. [30:22] IT'S ISOLATED FROM THE TRAFFIC GRID. IT'S AN ISLAND BORDERED ONLY BY ONE STREET, JOHNSON STREET TO THE WEST. [30:30] WITH THE FREEWAY AND THE FREEWAY ENTRANCE RAMP SURROUNDING THE REMAINING SIDE TO THE PARCEL. [30:36] SO IN OUR PARLANCE, IT HAS ONE STREET ONLY. [30:41] TECHNICALLY IT'S A DOUBLE CORNER LOT. THE SITE HAS BEEN USED AS A CONSTRUCTION YARD. [30:47] CURRENTLY USED AS A NON-CONFORMING STORAGE YARD FOR A VEHICLE TOWING COMPANY. [30:56] THE PROJECT BRINGS TWO OF THE MOST DESIRABLE USES ALIGNED WITH THE GOALS INTENDED IN THE 2040 [31:05] PLAN, DAYCARE AND GROCERY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MET TRANSIT, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A [31:11] LOCATION THAT'S ABOUT A HALF A BLOCK TO THE SOUTH AND THE MOST [31:23] PROXIMITAL NORTHERN TRANSIT STATION IS AT THE POST OFFICE WHICH IS NORTH OF THE QUARRY. SO IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE [31:33] BRT, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MET TRANSIT AND THEY ARE [31:39] AGREEABLE TO RELOCATE THAT SOUTHERN TRANSIT STOP TO OUR [31:44] PROJECT. AND IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE BETTER [31:51] TRANSIT FOR GROCERY PATRONS. SO I'D LIKE TO SPEAK REAL [31:56] QUICKLY TO THE SIGNING VARIANCE MATTER. JUST A FEW SHORT COMMENTS. [32:10] ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS, THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE SIGN [32:18] CLUTTER IN THE AREA OR A SIGN THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT. CORRIDOR MIXED USE, ALL PROPOSED [32:25] SIGNAGE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIGNAGE CODE. THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS SOLELY [32:31] FOR IDENTIFICATION OF THE TENANTS FROM 35W. [32:37] THE TECHNICAL REASON A SIGNAGE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AT THIS [32:43] SITE IS INTERSTATE 35W AND THE 35W ONRAMP WHICH ABUT THE [32:51] PROPERTY ARE NOT DESIGNATED SLASH RECOGNIZED BY STAFF AS STREETS. [32:57] THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE CODE, SIGNAGE IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE NON-PRIMARY BUILDING WALL IF [33:03] IT DOESN'T ABUT A STREET. NOW REMEMBER, THIS IS A VERY [33:08] UNIQUELY SHAPED PARCEL SITTING UP ABOVE THE FREEWAY ON MORE [33:14] THAN TWO SIDES. MNDOT PROPERTY SURROUNDS ABOUT [33:21] 220 DEGREES OF THIS PARCEL. SO ALTHOUGH 35W AND THE RAMP [33:27] FUNCTION LIKE A STREET, THEY'RE NOT RECOGNIZED AS A STREET. [33:32] IF THERE WERE A BUILDING BEHIND OUR STRUCTURE, THEN SIGNAGE MIGHT IMPACT THE VIEW CORRIDOR [33:38] OF THAT BUILDING IF IT'S NOT ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. WE ALL UNDERSTAND, SIGNAGE ON [33:45] THE STREET MAKES SENSE. BUT SIGNAGE ON THE BACK OF A BUILDING COULD BE PROBLEMATIC [33:50] FOR OTHER NEIGHBORS. THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS, THERE IS NO BUILDING ON THE BACKSIDE AND [33:57] NEVER CAN A BUILDING BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE BACKSIDE BECAUSE IT'S ALL MNDOT PROPERTY. [34:04] SO THERE'S NO ONE WHO CAN BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY A SIGN. OR THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. [34:12] THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PARCEL ELEVATED ABOVE 35W WITH THE [34:18] STEEP MNDOT SLOPES IS CERTAINLY NOT LOCATED IN A TYPICAL CITY [34:24] BLOCK GRID PATTERN FOR WHICH THE CODE WAS WRITTEN. IT'S UNIQUE. [34:29] BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS SITE, THE NONPRIMARY BUILDING WALL IS THE MOST [34:34] PROMINENT FACADE FOR OUR BUILDING TENANTS. TO DENY A BUSINESS THE [34:41] OPPORTUNITY TO DISPLAY SIGNAGE TO 35W IS COUNTERINTUITIVE FOR A [34:47] CITY'S EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING OF COMMUNITIES AND PROMOTING BUSINESSES TO SUPPORT THOSE COMMUNITIES. [34:56] I HAVE A COUPLE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOW PRECEDENT OF EXISTING [35:03] SIGNAGE ON NONPRIMARY BUILDING WALLS ON 35W WHICH ARE LOCATED LESS THAN A MILE FROM THIS [35:08] SUBJECT SITE. COULD WE TURN ON, PLEASE, THE [35:15] DOCUMENT CAMERA? [35:37] THIS IS ON 35W, A STONE'S THROW FROM THE BUILDING HEADING NORTH. [35:42] AND PROMINENT DISPLAY OF SIGNAGE. HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE, THIS IS [35:48] HEADING SOUTH ON 35W AT WASHINGTON AVENUE. AND AGAIN MNDOT PROPERTY ABUTS [35:56] BOTH OF THESE BUILDINGS AS THEY ABUT THE FREEWAY. [36:06] SO THAT ENDS MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. [36:12] ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. [36:17] >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TO [36:22] TESTIFY TO THIS ITEM? I'M NOT SEEING ANY, SO I WILL [36:27] CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS? [36:37] COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I'M NEVER GOOD AT MAKING THESE MOTIONS HERE. [36:43] FOR SOME REASON IT'S SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I'M USED TO. I'M SENSITIVE AS I WAS THE LAST [36:48] TIME TO A BUSINESS OWNER TRYING TO DRIVE TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY UP HERE, [36:56] DOES ANYONE LIVE NEAR? THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHAT [37:03] USED TO BE CALLED ROSE ACRE PARK. IT'S THE POOL, RIGHT? [37:10] AND HUGE, HUGE PARK. AND I DO KNOW THAT THAT AREA, THAT CORNER GOES TO LARGELY [37:15] NOTHING. IT'S KIND OF A DEAD END OF NOTHINGNESS. SO I WAS SWAYED BY THE IDEA. [37:22] I RECOGNIZE WHAT STAFF WAS SAYING ABOUT CHALLENGES WITH [37:27] DRIVERS AND COMPLETELY I THINK WE HAVE A THOUSAND OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT DISTRACT US IN LIFE [37:33] DRIVING THAN A SIGN FOR A GROCERY STORE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A [37:38] MOTION WORTH CARRYING OR IF THAT'S JUST A DISCUSSION POINT. BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM. [37:43] I'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM OTHERS IF THEY CONSIDERED IT AS WELL. [37:49] >> SO YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU'RE CONSIDERING A MOTION TO GRANT THE SIGN VARIANCE? [37:55] >> TO GRANT, YES. HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT I EVEN SAY THAT? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK KIMBERLY [38:01] TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE. IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR FINDINGS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE, THERE ARE THE ADDITIONAL TWO [38:06] SIGN VARIANCE FINDINGS. CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT, KIMBERLY? >> CORRECT. [38:12] SO ANY MOTION THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD NEED TO COME WITH FINDINGS. SO IT WOULD BE THE STANDARD [38:20] THREE VARIANCE FINDINGS THAT RESULT IN A FINDING THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THE SITE THAT RESULTS IN A NEED FOR [38:28] FLEXIBILITY ON THE SIGN REGULATIONS. SO ONE, WHAT UNIQUE [38:34] CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THERE THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS SITE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED BY THE PROPERTY [38:41] OWNER. LOOK AT CONSISTENCY WITH RESPECT [38:46] TO THE ZONING CODE AND THE COMP PLAN, POTENTIAL FOR OFF SITE IMPACTS WHICH GETS INTO THE TWO [38:53] ADDITIONAL VARIANCE FINDINGS RELATED TO SIGN ADJUSTMENTS. THE FIRST ONE I THINK WAS [38:58] ESSENTIALLY MET RELATED TO THE MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE SIGN. [39:05] AND THE SECOND ONE WHICH WAS NOT MET WHICH WAS LARGELY FOCUSED ON THE SIGN CLUTTER ARGUMENT THAT [39:10] WAS MADE BY STAFF. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, SINCE I DON'T EVER REALLY MAKE MOTIONS [39:16] HERE, I'VE TRIED TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT WE CAN'T JUST MAKE A [39:22] MOTION AND DISCUSS IT? WE HAVE TO SORT OF JUDICIALLY OVERRIDE STAFF WITH SOME [39:29] EVIDENTIARY HEARING? >> CORRECT. THERE ARE REQUIRED LEGAL FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE [39:35] FOR EVERY LAND USE APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE THE CITY. SO STAFF PROPOSES A SET OF LEGAL [39:40] FINDINGS WITH THE STAFF REPORTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS. >> YEP. >> WHENEVER YOU ADOPT STAFF [39:46] RECOMMENDATION, YOU'RE ADOPTING THE SET OF LEGAL FINDINGS THAT WAS PROPOSED BY STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT. IF YOU DON'T INTEND TO GO WITH [39:53] STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT THOSE FINDINGS, FINDINGS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE ON THE FLOOR AS [39:59] PART OF THE MOTION. >> THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, THANK YOU FOR THAT. [40:05] I WAS THINKING MAYBE BECAUSE THERE'S A PRECEDENT SET AT THESE OTHER LOCATIONS. [40:10] AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAST ONE WAS -- I REALLY HAD TO LISTEN A LOT BETTER AND WRITE [40:16] THESE THINGS DOWN. SO I WON'T BE MAKING A MOTION, BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE COMES UP WITH THIS. [40:21] I AM SENSITIVE TO IT. I RECOGNIZE THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD LOVE -- I'M THE KIND OF [40:28] PERSON WHO SOMETIMES -- I'VE USED THAT LOCATION WHERE I GET GAS AND I'M JUST LIKE OH THERE'S [40:34] A GAS STATION. SO I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT. IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO HELP ME COME UP WITH OTHER FINDINGS, I'D [40:40] APPRECIATE IT. [40:45] >> SO I GUESS I'M UNDECIDED ON THE SIGN. I'M OPEN TO IT. [40:56] I WANT TO WALK THROUGH EACH OF THE FIVE FINDINGS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE. [41:02] SO OF THE FIVE, HOW MANY DID STAFF FIND IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, ARE ALL FIVE AGAINST [41:09] THEM? >> I BELIEVE MAYBE -- I APOLOGIZE I DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME. [41:16] BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS THE ONE [41:23] FINDING, I BELIEVE THAT WAS FOUND TO BE MET. THE OTHER FOUR WERE FOUND TO BE NOT MET. [41:36] >> WHICH ONE WAS MET THE FOURTH ONE? LET'S WALK THROUGH THEM. NUMBER ONE, CHALLENGES EXIST -- [41:41] GO AHEAD, KIMBERLY. I WAS GOING TO READ EACH OF THE FIVE. SO CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING [41:48] WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED [41:53] BY PERSONS PRESENTLY HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT BASED ON ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE. [41:58] SO YOU FOUND AGAINST THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE, CORRECT? [42:04] TWO, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER THAT WILL BE IN KEEPING [42:10] WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU FOUND AGAINST THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE? [42:16] >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT [42:22] ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY OR BE INJURIOUS TO [42:27] THE USE OF OTHER PROPERTIES. IF GRANTED IT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, [42:33] SAFETY, WELFARE OR GENERAL PUBLIC OF THOSE UTILIZING THE PROPERTY OR NEARBY PROPERTIES? [42:43] . YOU FOUND AGAINST ON THAT ONE? >> CORRECT. >> IT WILL NOT LEAD TO SIGN CLUTTER IN THE AREA OR RESULT IN [42:48] A SIGN THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED? [42:54] AND YOU FOUND AGAINST THEM ON THAT? >> CORRECT. >> SO THIS MUST BE THE ONE YOU FOUND IN FAVOR. SO THE SIGN ADJUSTMENT WILL [42:59] ALLOW A SIGN THAT RELATES IN SIGN, SHAPE, MATERIALS, ILLUMINATION, AND COLOR TO THE [43:06] FUNCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING ON PROPERTY IN WHICH THE SIGN WILL BE LOCATED. [43:12] SO YOU FOUND THAT ONE? >> THAT IS THE ONE WE FOUND THE FINDING IS SATISFIED WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE APPLICANT'S [43:17] PROPOSAL. >> OKAY. SO IF WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT MOTION, WE'D HAVE TO FIND FOUR [43:24] ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS. COMMISSIONER JONES. >> YEAH, SO I'M INCLINED TO AT [43:30] LEAST HAVE THE DISCUSSION TOO AS WELL. SO MY SORT OF INITIAL THOUGHTS [43:36] ARE THAT THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE FREEWAY NOT BEING A ROAD, I HAVE [43:42] BEEN DRIVING OVER THERE RECENTLY AND IT'S A FREEWAY, IT'S NOT A ROAD AND IT SEEMS CONSISTENT [43:49] WITH THE PRECEDENCE THAT YOU PROVIDED FOR US IN TERMS OF OTHER SIGNAGE ALONG THE FREEWAY. [43:55] AND I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT IT'S GOING TO CAUSE UNDULY ADD TO THE [44:00] SIGNAGE CLUTTER IN THAT AREA. SO THOSE ARE AT LEAST, I'M [44:07] LEANING TOWARDS ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE SIGN ON THAT PART OF THE BUILDING JUST [44:13] BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION AND THE STRUCTURE, THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY, ET CETERA. [44:19] SO THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY? [44:26] >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FOUND THE APPLICANT'S EXPLANATION VERY COMPELLING. [44:32] ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD AND YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION AROUND GAS STATIONS CAME UP AND [44:37] THOSE ARE TYPICALLY THE MONUMENT SIGNS WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU WERE REFERRING TO EARLIER AS THE [44:44] ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE THE APPLICANT COULD POTENTIALLY USE IF NOT ON THE BUILDING. SO I GUESS MAYBE THIS IS A [44:51] QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS IS A MONUMENT SIGN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED OR WERE [44:56] ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO IF THERE ISN'T PRACTICAL [45:05] DIFFICULTY FOUND? >> I WILL JUST NOTE, IS THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED? [45:12] >> IT IS. >> IN THE PAST WE CAN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF WE'D LIKE TO. [45:19] I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE THIS QUESTION. [45:25] DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND ANSWER THIS QUESTION, PLEASE? [45:35] >> COMMISSIONER, WE DID LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE OPTIONS, AND [45:41] A MONUMENT SIGN IN THIS LOCATION IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER A [45:48] DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE IN THAT THE BUILDING IS [45:53] CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE EAST SIDE WHICH IS MNDOT PROPERTY AND WE COULD NOT COMPLY [46:00] WITH A MONUMENT SIGN AND MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE OTHER REASON IS WE THOUGHT A [46:09] SIMPLE IDENTIFIABLE BUSINESS SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WAS MUCH LESS INTRUSIVE THAN A [46:15] LARGE MONUMENT SIGN. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. [46:23] >> WHILE YOU'RE BACK UP HERE, CAN YOU RECAP WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FROM FINDINGS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS IN YOUR LETTER, RIGHT? [46:29] WHAT WERE YOUR RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR THE SIGN? >> FOR THE THREE FINDINGS OF [46:39] FACT? >> FOUR. >> SO THERE ARE THREE VARIANCE FINDINGS THAT APPLY TO VARIANCE [46:46] REQUESTS AND SIGN VARIANCES HAVE [46:51] TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT, TODD PROBABLY PUT THE FINDINGS TOGETHER WHEN HE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION [46:57] MATERIALS SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU, THEY WOULD BE IN THE PACKET. >> FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M THE FILL [47:05] IN GUY TONIGHT. THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS [47:11] PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT'S CALLED AN APPENDIX, SO HE'S NOT HERE. [47:19] I CAN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO IT, ALTHOUGH TO GO BACK TO SUMMARIZE MY COMMENTS THAT UNIQUENESS TO [47:26] THE SITE AND IT WILL NOT IMPACT OR CAUSE UNDUE HARM AND THEN THE [47:34] THIRD ONE I BELIEVE WAS, HELP ME, KIMBERLY. >> SPIRIT AND INTENT, [47:40] REASONABLENESS AND SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. >> CORRECT. [47:45] REASONABLENESS AND THE FACT THAT THESE ARE BUSINESSES, HIGHLY DESIRABLE BUSINESSES THAT WE [47:51] THOUGHT IT'S REASONABLE THAT THEY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES ON 35W. [47:58] >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE RECLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> OKAY. [48:03] >> I'LL JUST NOTE FOR COMMISSIONERS QUICK THAT THE APPLICANT'S LETTER IS ON PAGE 46 [48:08] OF THE PACKET IF YOU WANT TO READ THROUGH HIS FINDINGS ON THAT. >> SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. [48:15] OTHER DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS? [48:28] I ALSO DON'T FIND THAT THIS ADDS CLUTTER. I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHER [48:35] COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SPOKE TO IT. BUT DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ON STAFF'S FINDING THAT IT COULD BE DANGEROUS TO [48:41] HAVE SIGNS? I DO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT [48:46] THAT THERE DON'T SEEM TO BE ANY NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BE NEGATIVELY HARMED LIKE THIS WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN [48:53] THIS AND THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WE REJECTED FROM JP MORGAN. [48:59] COMMISSIONER JONES. >> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> I'M SORRY, DID I MISS YOU? [49:06] >> I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DRIVING THAT QUITE A BIT FOR OTHER REASONS, LIKE GOING RIGHT IN [49:12] FRONT OF THE -- AND I HAVEN'T BEEN, I DON'T SEE ANY [49:18] COMPLICATIONS ALTHOUGH THERE'S NOT A BUILDING THERE NOW. BUT AT LEAST IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. [49:24] THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ACTIVITY OTHER THAN PEOPLE JUST GETTING OFF THE FREEWAY AND GETTING OVER [49:30] ON JOHNSON OR 18th. >> COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU. [49:38] CHAIR MEYER. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST TO KIND OF GO BACK TO THAT [49:44] MONUMENT SIGN QUESTION. I KNOW WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO DUE TO OTHER ZONING CODE. [49:51] BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION. I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY [49:59] ANALYSIS ON POSSIBLE OTHER SIGNAGE OPTIONS INCLUDING THE MONUMENT SIGN THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH CURRENT ZONING CODE? [50:06] >> THAT'S NOT ANALYSIS THAT I HAVE DONE PRIOR TO THIS OR EVALUATED THE SIGNS THAT WERE ON THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. [50:15] PERSONALLY, I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING ALTERNATE SIGN IDEAS OR PROPOSALS WITH THE APPLICANT [50:22] TEAM PRIOR TO TODAY. WE CONSIDERED WHAT WAS ON THE PLANS AND AGAIN MOST OF THE [50:29] SIGNS THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED ON THE OTHER SIDES OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ZONING CODE [50:34] REQUIREMENTS. SPEAKING GENERALLY, THE WAY OUR [50:41] ZONING ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED AROUND BUSINESS SIGNAGE LIKE THIS IS LARGELY TO LIMIT WHAT [50:49] HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS A PROLIFERATION OF SIGNAGE ON A [50:56] LOT OF OUR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. SO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS SIGNAGE ARE NOT AS [51:03] PERMISSIVE AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. [51:12] >> WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT OTHER SIGNAGE OPTIONS? >> YEAH, AFTER THIS HEARING, WE [51:18] ARE CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO TALK WITH APPLICANT TEAMS THROUGH [51:23] ALTERNATE PROPOSALS. FOR SIGNS THAT REQUIRE OR THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE ZONING [51:29] CODE, THEY DON'T NEED TO COME THROUGH FOR ANOTHER HEARING. IT'S ONLY FOR WHEN IT IS A SIGN [51:34] VARIANCE THAT IT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> THANK YOU. YEAH, COLLEAGUES, I AGREE WITH [51:41] MUCH OF WHAT WAS SAID UP HERE IN TERMS OF IS THIS GOING TO BE [51:50] ADDITIONAL CLUTTER NOT I DON'T REALLY THINK SO JUST BASED OFF OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALREADY SIGNAGE. AND I THINK THE PLACE WHERE I'M [51:58] STRUGGLING IS A FINDING OF FACT AROUND SATISFYING THE CLAUSE [52:03] AROUND CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE PROPERTY. [52:09] I MEAN IF ANOTHER COMMISSIONER HAS A COMPELLING FINDING FOR [52:14] THAT, I WOULD BE INTERESTED. BUT I'M CURRENTLY NOT SEEING [52:22] THAT, AND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER SIGNAGE CASE A COUPLE PLANNING COMMISSIONS AGO [52:29] AND THEN ON TO CITY COUNCIL, THE DEFINING PART OF THAT [52:36] CONVERSATION WAS WE HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS THAT EXIST BEFORE US AND MAKE A DECISION BASED OFF OF THAT. [52:43] WE CAN'T USE A VARIANCE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A PRECEDENT OR LEGISLATE [52:49] DIFFERENTLY. AND I FEEL LIKE AS A COUNCIL, WE [52:54] MADE THE DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL [53:00] PRECEDENT SETTING AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON NONPRIMARY BUILDING OR PRIMARY BUILDING [53:06] WALL SIGNAGE. AND SO FOR THERE IS A COMPELLING [53:12] UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO THE PROPERTY THAT WE CAN FIND, I THINK THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO [53:17] LEGALLY SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THIS VARIANCE. BUT THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M SEEING ESPECIALLY IF [53:24] THERE ARE OTHER SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO SUPPORT [53:30] THE BUSINESS. I LOVE SHOPPING AT THE QUARRY. I SHOPPED AT THE QUARRY OFTEN [53:36] WHEN I WAS A COLLEGE STUDENT. IT'S A NOTABLE, ICONIC AREA FOR MANY PEOPLE TO GET WHAT THEY [53:41] NEED. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU GET THE SIGNAGE THAT YOU NEED TO CONTINUE BRINGING IN THOSE [53:46] CUSTOMERS THAT RELY ON THAT AREA. BUT THIS FEELS LIKE KIND OF A STICKING POINT FOR ME AT THIS [53:52] MOMENT. [53:58] >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MEYER. I TEND TO AGREE WITH [54:04] COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. I THINK I AM STRUGGLING TO FIND A CHALLENGING COMPLIANCE. [54:10] I THINK IT'S A NICE TO HAVE. BUT THAT ISN'T JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE. [54:15] IT IS A UNIQUE SITE, BUT I CAN'T [54:20] DETERMINE A CHALLENGE THAT THE ORDINANCE CAN'T BE MET. I'M GOING TO BE VOTING TO [54:26] SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS ON THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I DO [54:31] APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS LISTENING TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, MODIFYING THE PROPOSAL IN SUCH A WAY, IT'S A [54:38] MUCH BETTER PROJECT THAN WE SAW BEFORE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A [54:44] MOTION? >> SURE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS ON THIS. [54:49] >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> I DID WANT TO JUST NOTE TO [54:56] THE APPLICANT AS COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SIGNAGE FOR JP MORGAN, THERE [55:05] WAS DISCUSSION AGAIN ABOUT WE HAVE THE LEGISLATION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND OUT OF THAT [55:12] THERE WERE COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSING POTENTIAL ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING SIGNAGE. SO I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR YOU TO [55:18] REACH OUT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE AREA AND INQUIRE ABOUT THAT DISCUSSION. [55:28] AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN [55:34] THERE THAT MAY SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. DEPENDING ON HOW THAT GOES, YOU MAY NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR [55:41] THIS. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THAT. >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. [55:47] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. A COMPELLING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN [55:53] MADE AND I RESPECT THAT. I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF JUST BECAUSE I CLEARLY AM [55:58] NOT THE QUEEN OF THE SIGNAGE ORDINANCES. IS THIS A CITY ORDINANCE? [56:04] DOES IT COME THROUGH WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN. HOW DID THIS COME UP? I'M CURIOUS THE STRUCTURE OF [56:11] HIERARCHY WE'RE DEALING WITH WHEN IT COMES TO THE SIGNS? >> SIGN REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE ZONING CODE [56:17] PROBABLY BACK TO THE 1924 CODE. I GUESS I'D HAVE TO DIG THAT OUT. CERTAINLY BACK TO THE 1963 CODE, [56:23] THEY'RE A PRIMARY TENANT OF ZONING CODES NATIONWIDE. [56:29] NOT RELATED TO THE 2040 PLAN. THERE ARE SOME TWEAKS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OVER TIME. IT'S PROBABLY ONE PART OF THE [56:35] CODE THAT GETS A LOT OF ATTENTION AS SUPREME COURT CASES COME DOWN RELATED TO CONTENT AND [56:41] WHATNOT. SO YES, PRIMARY COMPONENT OF THE ZONING CODE. >> THE ZONING CODE, PERFECT. SO WE'RE NOT TURNING ANY PARTS [56:48] OF THE CITY INTO TIME SQUARE WHERE IT'S JUST A BLAST OF EVERYTHING. JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THANKS. [57:06] >> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. SORRY. [57:24] NO, SORRY. [57:34] WE ALREADY REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ONCE. YOU CAN FIND THE SIGN IN THE APPLICATION ONLINE. [57:39] SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. COMMISSIONER CONLEY. [57:45] >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANTED TO ALSO SINCE STAFF WAS UP HERE, I KNOW THAT I ASKED BEFORE ABOUT [57:53] THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION OR WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT ALTERNATIVE [58:01] SIGNAGE. SO I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT BEING INTRUSIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ET CETERA, WHEN A BIG MONUMENT SIGN COULD [58:07] POSSIBLY DO THAT. BUT LOOKING AT WAYS WHERE ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE WOULD FIT [58:14] WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT SORT OF OPTIONS MIGHT BE ON THE TABLE ASIDE FROM WHAT THE VOTE [58:19] RESULTS IN TODAY. I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE. THANK YOU. [58:29] >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [58:49] THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER. [58:59] NO. [59:13] CAN WE HAVE THEM ESCORTED, PLEASE. [59:27] SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE STAFF FINDINGS. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION [59:35] ABOUT THIS? ALL RIGHT NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER [59:40] DISCUSSION, CLERK, PLEASE CALL [59:47] THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. [59:53] >> CHOWDHURY. -- >> CONLEY. [59:58] >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> JONES. >> AYE. >> THOMPSON. [1:00:05] >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> AT THIS MOMENT WE HAVE SIX [1:00:12] AYES AND 0 NAYS. I'M SORRY, HOW DID I MISS YOU, MEYER. CHAIR MEYER. [1:00:18] >> AYE. >> AND THEN -- COMMISSIONER [1:00:23] CHOWDHURY -- >> THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE STAFF FINDINGS. >> AYE. [1:00:29] >> SO THAT'S EIGHT AYES AND 0 NAYS. THANK YOU. >> THAT IS ADOPTED. [1:00:34] AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM WHICH IS [1:00:41] ITEM NUMBER SIX. 3010, 3016 AND 3020 12th AVENUE [1:00:47] SOUTH. AND STAFF IS HILLARY DVORAK. [1:01:09] >> THIS IS AN ITEM A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE [1:01:15] ON TODAY. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 3010, 3016, AND 3020 12th AVENUE [1:01:21] SOUTH. IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 12th AVENUE ONE PARCEL SOUTH [1:01:26] OF EAST LAKE STREET. THE 3010, EXCUSE ME, THE 3010 [1:01:32] 12th AVENUE SOUTH PROPERTY IS VACANT AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3016 AND 3020 ARE [1:01:38] LOCATED BY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE FOR [1:01:44] THESE PROPERTIES ARE INTERIOR THREE. THESE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED UN2, [1:01:49] URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE THREE BUILT FORM DISTRICT. [1:02:01] THE APPLICANT OWNS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AT 1119 [1:02:10] EAST LAKE STREET. THIS PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY A FORMER FUNERAL HOME. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE FOR [1:02:16] THAT SITE IS MIXED USE AND CORRIDOR SIX. THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE [1:02:23] CORRIDOR SIX BUILT FORUM DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO COMBINE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED [1:02:29] AT 3010, 16, AND 20 12th AVENUE SOUTH WITH THE PROPERTY LOCATED [1:02:35] AT 1119 EAST LAKE STREET TO CREATE ONE DEVELOPMENT SITE. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE OF [1:02:42] URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE OF INTERIOR THREE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE DENSITY [1:02:48] OF THE PROJECT OR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING BEING PROPOSED. TO ALLOW GREATER DENSITY AND THE [1:02:54] TALLER BUILDING, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO AMEND THE GUIDANCE [1:02:59] IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SINCE THE ADOPTION OF MINNEAPOLIS 2040, THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD WITH A PROPOSAL TO [1:03:04] COMBINE THE PROPERTIES ON 12th AVENUE WITH THE PROPERTY ON EAST LAKE STREET TO CREATE ONE [1:03:10] DEVELOPMENT SITE WHICH WAS NOT A KNOWN PROPOSAL AT THE TIME THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED. [1:03:16] THIS OFFERS A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, [1:03:21] INCREASES THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING, SUPPORTS THE POLICIES FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE [1:03:26] DESIGNATED GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR AND IN LINE WITH THE EXTENT OF THE CORRIDOR MIXED-USE [1:03:31] DISTRICT AND THE CORRIDOR SIX DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF 12th AVENUE SOUTH. ON THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU IS [1:03:38] THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN. [1:03:43] THE YELLOW IS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SALMONY COLOR TO THE NORTH OF THE RED BOX IS THE CORRIDOR [1:03:49] MIXED USE. THE APPLICANT IS COMBINING THESE PROPERTIES AND THEY ARE ASKING TO GO FROM YELLOW TO SALMON. [1:03:57] OR FROM URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO CORRIDOR MIXED USE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU [1:04:03] SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FOR BOTH [1:04:08] URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND MIXED USE, FUTURE LAND USE AND INTERIOR TWO, INTERIOR THREE AND [1:04:16] CORRIDOR SIX BUILT FORM. THE EXTENT OF BOTH THE CORRIDOR MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE [1:04:21] CATEGORY AND THE MIXED DISTRICT ALONG THE STREET BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF EAST LAKE STREET ARE [1:04:29] VERY REMARKABLY BETWEEN CHICAGO AVENUE AND BLOOMINGTON AVENUE. THE PROPOSED EXTENT OF THE CORRIDOR MIXED USE DISTRICT AND [1:04:35] THE CORRIDOR SIX DISTRICT WOULD CLOSELY MATCH THE EXTENT OF THE DISTRICTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF 12th AVENUE. [1:04:40] AGAIN FOR ORIENTATION, THIS IS THE BUILT FORM MAP, THE RED BOX [1:04:46] IS THE SITE IN QUESTION. THOSE THREE PROPERTIES ARE GUIDED FOR INTERIOR THREE. [1:04:51] THE PROPERTY THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO TIE THIS ONE TO IS AT 118 EAST LAKE WHICH IS IN [1:04:57] CORRIDOR SIX SO THE WINE COLORED COLOR ON THE MAP. AND AS YOU CAN SEE AS I GO FROM [1:05:05] FUTURE LAND USE AS I TOGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO, THE EXTENT OF THE ONE THAT THEY WANT TO GO TO [1:05:11] VARIES GREATLY NORTH AND SOUTH OF LAKE STREET FROM EAST TO WEST. [1:05:16] THIS ALSO GETS BACK TO THE NOTE THAT KIMBERLY HAD MENTIONED ABOUT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT EACH ONE [1:05:22] AS THEY COME IN WHEN THE COMP PLAN IS AMENDED. HAD WE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY IF WE HAD KNOWN [1:05:28] THESE WERE A ONE PROPERTY SITE? I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES GIVEN OUR RECOMMENDATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE [1:05:35] BETTER ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND BUILT FORM DESIGNATIONS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDORS WHICH IS EAST [1:05:42] LAKE STREET. AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE AND BUILT FORM GUIDANCE WOULD ALLOW [1:05:47] GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS INCLUDING INCREASING SUPPLY OF [1:05:52] HOUSING NEAR TRANSIT AND IMPROVES ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL GOODS AND SERVICES. ADDITIONALLY, THE LOCATION PROMOTES PUBLIC HEALTH BY [1:05:59] WALKING, BIKING, AND ACCESS TO NATURE, AND REDUCES VEHICLE EMISSIONS FOR VEHICLE TRIPS FOR [1:06:05] DAILY NECESSITIES. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. [1:06:11] THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A REZONING AND THE OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT [1:06:17] WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN IDENTIFIED. THEY DO HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY PLANS IN THE PROJECT, BUT AGAIN YOU ARE NOT APPROVING THE [1:06:24] PROJECT. YOU ARE APPROVING THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, THE DESIGN AND THE REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT [1:06:29] WILL COME LATER. I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR [1:06:34] STAFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION, HILLARY. [1:06:40] I'M SORRY -- >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M HAPPY TO WAIT IF YOU WANT TO [1:06:46] GO FIRST. >> I JUST HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT IF [1:06:55] IT'S CHANGED IN THE APPROVED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND DENSITY NOW AS [1:07:01] COMPARED TO IF IT GETS MORE [1:07:06] DENSE. ARE WE TALKING A SIX STORY BUILDING, A TEN STORY BUILDING? >> THEY ARE PROPOSING, WHAT'S IN THE PACKET WHAT THEY PRESENTED [1:07:13] TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP THROUGH THEIR OUTREACH THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO AND THE ENGAGEMENT THEY NEEDED TO DO FOR THIS [1:07:19] PROCESS WAS TO GO TO A SEVEN STORY BUILDING. THIS ALLOWS THEM TO GO TO SIX. THEY WOULD NEED PREMIUMS AS PART [1:07:26] OF A LAND USE APPLICATION TO GET TO SEVEN. WE HAVE NOT STARTED DISCUSSING THOSE SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT [1:07:32] YET. >> I'M SORRY, SO WHAT DO THEY NEED FOR A SIX STORY BUILDING? [1:07:38] >> AMENDING THE BUILT FORM FROM INTERIOR THREE TO CORRIDOR SIX WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BUILD TO SIX [1:07:45] STORIES. IF THEY WANTED TO EXCEED SIX STORIES, THEY COULD GO TO TEN WITH PREMIUMS IN THE ZONING [1:07:52] CODE. BUT WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING YOU IN THE PACKET AND WHAT THEY SHOWED THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS A SEVEN STORY BUILDING. [1:07:58] SO THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO GET TO SIX, THEN THEY WOULD NEED PREMIUMS TO GO TO SEVEN. >> AND CAN YOU TELL ME JUST [1:08:05] REALLY QUICKLY HOW ARE PREMIUMS GRANTED? >> THEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE. SO THEY ENCLOSE ALL OF THE [1:08:12] PARKING, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. THEY PROVIDE A DAYCARE, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. [1:08:17] THEY PROVIDE A GROCERY STORE, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. IF THEY DO CERTAIN THINGS IN OUR CODE, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. >> AND THOSE ARE [1:08:23] ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANTED? >> YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [1:08:33] I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. INTERIOR THREE CURRENTLY ALLOWS WHAT KIND OF A BUILT FORM? >> UP TO THREE STORIES. [1:08:38] >> AND HOW MANY UNITS? >> IT DOES NOT DICTATE NUMBER OF [1:08:44] UNITS, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MASS OF THE BUILDING ON THE SITE. IT COULD BE ONE, IT COULD BE 30. IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY THEY [1:08:50] COULD FIT. BUT IT'S NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OF DENSITY AND HEIGHT. [1:08:58] >> SO WHO OWNS, I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAP 1115 EAST LAKE? [1:09:14] >> IT IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEY HAVE TRIED TO PURCHASE IT, IT WOULD MAKE THE SITE MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE. [1:09:20] THAT OWNER IS NOT WILLING TO SELL. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THAT OWNER AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, DO YOU KNOW? >> IT'S A PARKING LOT. [1:09:26] AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PROPOSING TO DO WITH IT, BUT IT'S A PARKING LOT. >> OKAY. [1:09:35] MY LAST QUESTION AT THE MOMENT, YOU'RE AT THE SAME PICTURE I'M [1:09:41] ON. SO YOU SAID ESSENTIALLY IT'S TAKING WHAT'S IN THE RED AND TURNING IT INTO THE NEW ZONING CODE WHICH I'M GUESSING IS [1:09:48] INTERIOR TO CORRIDOR SIX. SO CORRIDOR SIX IS AT THE EDGE OF LAKE STREET. SO WHAT IS THE CREAM COLOR AS WE [1:09:54] GET TOWARD THE MIDDLE? WHAT IS THAT ZONING CODE? >> DOWN HERE? >> YEAH. >> THIS IS INTERIOR TWO SO LOWER [1:10:01] DENSITY. >> RIGHT, SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING, I GUESS MY POINT IN ASKING THAT IS WE WOULD BE [1:10:07] MAKING THIS HIGH DENSITY LAKE STREET CORRIDOR STUFF RIGHT NEXT TO LIKE A DUPLEX? [1:10:13] >> CORRECT. AND THAT'S THE PATTERN THAT YOU SEE ON THE MAP. ALL OF THIS PURPLE IS CORRIDOR [1:10:19] SIX NEXT TO INTERIOR THREE, NEXT TO INTERIOR TWO. >> SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AT [1:10:27] 11TH AVENUE, ALL OF THAT CORRIDOR SIX AND EVEN 13th, WAS THAT ORIGINALLY THAT WAY OR WAS [1:10:32] THAT ALSO A VARIANCE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW? >> NO, THAT'S HOW IT IS RIGHT [1:10:40] NOW. THAT'S HOW IT WAS GUIDED WHEN WE ADOPTED 2040. >> MAY I ASK WHY 13th AND 11TH [1:10:46] HAVE THIS AND NOT 12th? >> I'M GOING TO ASSUME THEY WERE LOOKING AT PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS. LAKE STREET HAS SPECIFIC [1:10:52] GUIDANCE BECAUSE IT'S THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, WE WANT OUR ACTIVE USES UP THERE. [1:10:59] AND SO THIS IS ONE PROPERTY THAT COMES DOWN. [1:11:05] THIS IS ONE PROPERTY. >> SO THEY'RE ALREADY ONE -- OKAY, GOT IT. >> AT THE TIME, WE DID NOT KNOW [1:11:12] THAT THESE THREE PROPERTIES WERE IN CONJUNCTION UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS THIS ONE. [1:11:19] I THINK HAD WE KNOWN THAT, WE WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY DONE THAT [1:11:26] BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THAT DENSITY. >> TO ASSUME THAT THOSE GOING UP [1:11:31] ON THE PICTURE ON 11TH THAT ARE ALL PURPLE WERE ALL ESSENTIALLY [1:11:37] OWNED BY THE SAME LANDOWNER. [1:11:42] ON THE MAP IT USUALLY LOOKS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF PLACE WHY THEY WERE ALL PUT IN THERE. [1:11:48] >> I CAN'T THINK. THIS IS THE MIDTOWN EXCHANGE PARKING GARAGE. YOU JUST APPROVED A CLINIC FOR [1:11:54] THIS SITE. THIS IS MIDTOWN EXCHANGE. I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT THOSE [1:12:00] PROPERTIES ARE ACROSS THE STREET. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [1:12:05] WHAT ARE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CURRENTLY? >> WHERE? >> THE ONES THE APPLICANT IS [1:12:13] SUGGESTING TO SWITCH. >> ONE IS VACANT AND TWO ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. >> I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY [1:12:18] QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? [1:12:24] COMMISSIONER -- >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS MORE ME THINKING OUT LOUD A LITTLE BIT. SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY [1:12:30] WE WOULD WANT THE CORRIDOR 6 ALONG LAKE STREET. SO YOU CAN GO DOWN LAKE STREET RIGHT NOW AND SEE THERE'S RAPID [1:12:36] TRANSIT COMING THROUGH. IT'S OUR BUSINESS CORRIDOR. THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR OF THE SOUTH SIDE. [1:12:43] I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT. IT'S WHEN IT STARTS TO MOVE INTO [1:12:48] THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I CRINGE A LITTLE BIT. I GET WHY OUR JOB RIGHT NOW IS TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT WHICH [1:12:56] IS MOVING FROM INTERIOR THREE TO CORRIDOR SIX. BUT I SEE WHY IT'S INTERIOR THREE. [1:13:01] IT'S THAT LAKE STREET REVITALIZATION DENSITY ET CETERA FACING AND ABUTTING LAKE STREET [1:13:07] IS IMPORTANT AND MAKES SENSE. BUT THEN YOU SEE AS YOU MOVE IN, THESE ARE STREETS THAT ARE [1:13:17] EXTRAORDINARILY NARROW. THEY ARE, OOF, PARKING ON BOTH SIDES, IT'S HARD DRIVING THROUGH [1:13:24] THERE BECAUSE I'VE DONE IT MULTIPLE TIMES. AS THE DENSITY MOVES INTO THE [1:13:30] BLOCK FACING ME, I CAN SEE HOW THAT CAN BE A STRUGGLE FOR THE [1:13:36] HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. SO I'M TRYING TO GET TO A SPACE WHERE I CAN UNDERSTAND. [1:13:42] I REALLY APPRECIATED THE POINTING OUT THAT A LOT OF THESE ARE THE SAME OWNERSHIP, WHAT'S [1:13:49] IN THE DEEP PURPLE HERE. BUT YEAH, AS YOU MOVE INTO THE [1:13:56] BLOCK, IT'S HARD TO CONVINCE ME TO MOVE THAT TO CORRIDOR SIX. [1:14:02] EVERYTHING REALLY IS ON LAKE STREET FACING LAKE STREET ESPECIALLY AT THESE REALLY HIGH TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS WHERE [1:14:09] THERE'S ALREADY A LOT GOING ON WITH AS YOU EXPLAINED THE MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET. [1:14:14] YOU'VE GOT JUST SEVERAL BUSINESSES ALONG THERE, CHURCHES. THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF [1:14:20] DIFFERENT NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THIS STRETCH [1:14:26] TOO. SO I DON'T KNOW THE FACT THAT THERE'S HOMES ALREADY THERE AND YOU MOVE INWARD AND IT GOES DOWN TO THE INTERIOR THREE, I DON'T [1:14:32] KNOW, I'M TALKING OUT LOUD, BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF [1:14:38] KEEPING IT CLOSER TO LAKE STREET AS OPPOSED TO IT ENCROACHING ALONG THE BLOCK. I SEE WHY STAFF APPROVED IT [1:14:44] THOUGH. IT GETS TO THE DENSITY. IT GETS TO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT CORRIDOR SIX WARRANTS. [1:14:50] I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING IT INTO THE BLOCK. SO I GUESS I'LL STOP THERE. [1:14:59] THANK YOU. >> HILLARY, CAN YOU TELL US [1:15:06] WHERE THE BUS STATIONS ARE? ARE THEY AROUND MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET? >> YOU ARE ASKING A QUESTION I [1:15:12] CANNOT ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. ON LAKE STREET. THERE IS ONE ON GLOBAL MARKET. [1:15:18] I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET TO PULL UP. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE HAS THE ANSWER IN THE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN WE GET TO IT. [1:15:24] ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE -- COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [1:15:30] STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN F.A.R. AND SETBACKS FROM INTERIOR THREE TO CORRIDOR SIX. HOW THAT VARIES? [1:15:37] I KNOW WE KNOW THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE, BUT DO SETBACKS VARY [1:15:43] WILDLY? >> SO IT'S BASED ON WHETHER IT IS URBAN, IT'S NOT ON THE BUILT [1:15:51] FORM, IT'S ON THE -- NO, IT IS IN THE BUILT FORM. F.A.R. AND SETBACKS, THE F.A.R. [1:15:56] WILL BE HIGHER IN THE CORRIDOR SIX THAN IN THE INTERIOR THREE. AS FAR AS SETBACKS, SETBACKS ARE [1:16:05] STILL BECAUSE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL ON THE BLOCK FACE, THERE WILL STILL BE SETBACKS [1:16:13] ALONG 12th. SORRY I'M TRYING TO KEEP ALL OF MY FACTS STRAIGHT. THERE WILL BE SETBACKS REQUIRED [1:16:20] ON THE SOUTH FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL [1:16:27] WINDOWS IN THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. AND THERE WOULD BE A FRONT YARD SETBACK. [1:16:32] SO THOSE WOULD BE THE SETBACKS. SO YES, YOU CAN DEFINITELY BUILD MORE IN CORRIDOR SIX THAN [1:16:38] INTERIOR THREE. IN THIS CASE, THE SETBACKS WON'T [1:16:43] BE WILDLY DIFFERENT. I MEAN THE METRIC, THE MAXIMUM OR THE REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD BE [1:16:50] THE SAME REGARDLESS. >> OKAY. >> IF THIS IS APPROVED. >> COMMISSIONER GORDON, TO [1:16:56] ANSWER SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I DO HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING ACCESS TO THE INTERNET THAT HILLARY DOESN'T HAVE RIGHT NOW. [1:17:04] SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO BASE ZONING, IS IT MIXED USE, CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, [1:17:09] IS IT THREE UNITS. SO IF WE'RE TALKING JUST A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERIOR [1:17:14] THREE, THEIR MAXIMUM F.A.R. WOULD BE 1.6. A MIXED USE BUILDING WITHOUT ANY PREMIUMS IN CORRIDOR SIX WOULD [1:17:21] BE ALLOWED A BASE MAXIMUM F.A.R. OF 3.4. [1:17:30] >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY. SO WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC [1:17:36] HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS? GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. [1:17:44] >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MICHAEL I'M WITH NEWTON ROSELO AND I'M ASSISTING [1:17:52] THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WITH THIS PROJECT. I'LL TAKE JUST A COUPLE SECONDS TO EMPHASIZE 2 OR 3 POINTS. [1:17:59] THE FIRST IS TO REITERATE WHAT [1:18:07] MS. DVORAK SAID THAT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ORIGINAL COMP PLAN THAT [1:18:13] WAS PREPARED FOR THE SITE. EVERY PARCEL IN TOWN IS GIVEN A DESIGNATION. [1:18:18] UNFORTUNATELY THE THREE PARCELS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO 1119 ARE [1:18:24] OWNED BY THE SAME FAMILY, BUT THEY'RE HELD UNDER DIFFERENT [1:18:29] PROPERTY NAMES OR ENTITY NAMES AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN JUST FROM A RECORD SEARCH THAT THESE ARE ALL RELATED PARTIES. [1:18:37] AND I TAKE QUITE SERIOUSLY THE FACT THAT IF AT THE TIME THAT [1:18:43] THE COMP PLAN WAS PREPARED AND PASSED THAT HAD THE CITY KNOWN THIS, THESE WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN [1:18:51] LINKED TOGETHER. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT WE WENT [1:18:57] THROUGH THE CITY REQUIRED ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND WE PRESENTED THESE CONCEPTS TO BOTH STAFF AND [1:19:04] TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THERE WERE CONCERNS RAISED AS [1:19:10] THERE ALWAYS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS LIKE THE IDEA, SOME OF THEM LIKE [1:19:17] THE CONCEPT. SOME OF THEM HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS WAS GOING TO WORK, WHAT IT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, HOW [1:19:23] THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD IMPACT THEM. AND SO THAT REALLY RAISES THE POINT THAT THIS IS A COMP PLAN [1:19:32] AMENDMENT REQUEST. THIS IS NOT A LAND USE APPLICATION. IT'S NOT UP FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. [1:19:38] THERE WILL BE LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND I'M REFERRING TO COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S CONCERNS [1:19:44] ABOUT HOW IS THIS GOING TO LOOK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW IS IT GOING TO OPERATE, WE'LL LAY THAT OUT AS PART OF A SITE PLAN [1:19:50] REVIEW, PART OF A LAND USE APPLICATION. AND WE'LL TAKE THE QUESTIONS AND HAVE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS [1:19:57] SERIOUSLY AT THAT TIME. AND I KNOW THERE WILL BE SERIOUS ONES. BUT WHAT THIS ALLOWS US TO DO IS [1:20:05] TO MAKE THE TECHNICAL CORRECTION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. IT ALLOW US TO TAKE A SITE THAT [1:20:12] TRULY NEEDS TO BE REDEVELOPED. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT SECTION OF THE BLOCK, IT REALLY [1:20:19] NEEDS TO HAVE SOMETHING POSITIVE DONE. AND IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO ACQUIRE 1115, WE WOULD HAVE HAD [1:20:26] A SITE ON 1119 IN COMBINATION THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO BUILD SOME HOUSING THAT WOULD [1:20:32] WORK REALLY WELL. BUT WE'RE UNABLE TO DO THAT. BUT WHAT THIS WILL ALLOW US TO [1:20:37] AT LEAST BEGIN TO DO IS THE CONSIDERATION OF HOW TO BUILD HOUSING THAT IS NEEDED IN THIS [1:20:44] CORRIDOR THAT IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE CORRIDOR AROUND IT, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE RED COLOR [1:20:50] ON THE NORTH AND THE NORTHEAST AND THE EAST, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT. AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO BUILD [1:20:56] A PROJECT THAT HAS CONSIDERABLY HIGH LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING [1:21:01] ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR THAT JUST BEGS FOR THIS. SO I LOOK AT THIS AS AN [1:21:07] OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO YOU AND SHOW YOU THAT THIS WORKS [1:21:12] FROM A DENSITY, FROM AN OPERATING STANDPOINT, AND FROM AN INTEGRATION TO THE [1:21:18] NEIGHBORHOOD STANDPOINT. SO I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST STEP, BUT A NECESSARY ONE TO ALLOW US TO COME BACK AND PROVE [1:21:24] THAT THE SITE PLAN WILL WORK. I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. [1:21:29] >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? [1:21:38] >> YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON JANUARY 27TH. [1:21:44] DO YOU KNOW? >> I WAS THERE. I THINK 19 OR 20. >> 19 OR 20. >> YEAH, WE HAD A GOOD TURNOUT [1:21:51] ON A COLD WINTER NIGHT. >> SO WE'RE BASING THIS ENTIRE, WERE THERE TRANSLATORS THERE [1:21:57] BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SPANISH SPEAKERS ALONG LAKE [1:22:06] STREET. >> I'M SORRY -- >> WERE THERE TRANSLATORS? >> THERE WAS NOT A TRANSLATOR. [1:22:11] I DON'T RECALL ANYBODY WHO REQUIRED THE NEED OF A TRANSLATOR. >> SO WE'RE BASING THIS UP SELL [1:22:19] ON LIKE 20 PEOPLE? AND EVEN IN THOSE 20, THERE WERE [1:22:25] PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T, THAT WERE OBJECTING. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN [1:22:31] UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE MAKING THE DECISION BASED ON, WHAT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY SURROUNDING THESE [1:22:37] PROPERTIES. >> CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, WE FOLLOWED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY IN [1:22:43] PREPARING AN ENGAGEMENT PLAN, OF GOING THROUGH VARIOUS DRAFTS OF THE ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND GETTING [1:22:48] IT APPROVED BY CPED. GIVING NOTICE TO EVEN A BROADER [1:22:56] RANGE OF PEOPLE THAN THE CODE REQUIRES. SETTING UP EMAILS TO ASK PEOPLE TO COME. [1:23:02] AND THEN HOLDING A MEETING. ACTUALLY GETTING 20 PEOPLE AT A [1:23:10] COMMUNITY MEETING SOMETIMES IS BETTER THAN I OFTENTIMES SEE. WHEN WE SORT OF THINK ABOUT WHAT [1:23:15] THE OVER UNDER IS GOING TO BE, THAT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL. [1:23:21] AND ONE THING WE'VE REMINDED THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS IS THAT [1:23:27] THIS AGAIN, I'M SORT OF REPEATING MYSELF, BUT THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AND [1:23:32] SEVERAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS THAT WILL OCCUR. THERE WILL BE MANDATORY PUBLIC COMMUNITY MEETINGS IF WE APPLY [1:23:39] FOR A REZONING AS WE APPLY FOR A LAND USE APPLICATION. THIS WILL REOCCUR AND WE HOPE [1:23:45] THE COMMUNITY WILL CONTINUE TO BE ENGAGED. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I AGREE THAT SOMETIMES 19 PEOPLE [1:23:51] ON A COLD JANUARY IS A GOOD TURNOUT. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. [1:23:59] ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE YOU'RE REPRESENTING, WHY NOT JUST TRY TO BUILD SOMETHING WITHIN THE [1:24:05] CURRENT PLAN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. [1:24:11] THE IDEA IS TO BUILD HOUSING AND [1:24:17] TO GET ENOUGH HOUSING, TO GET A SIZABLE ENOUGH PROJECT TO MAKE [1:24:23] IT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO BUILD. YOU NEED A CERTAIN CRITICAL MASS. [1:24:31] AND WE COULD PROBABLY BUILD 20 UNITS BUT NOT ECONOMICALLY. AND CERTAINLY NOT TO MAKE THE [1:24:38] MAJORITY OF THEM AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO AT THAT POINT, IT'S JUST NOT VIABLE. >> SO YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT [1:24:44] WE AREN'T AT THAT PLACE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF UNITS THEY'RE GOING TO BE AS WE CONSIDER UP ZONING THIS. [1:24:51] SO IT'S LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES RIGHT NOW. >> WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT LEVEL OF [1:24:56] DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TO OCCUR TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE AND WE THINK THAT COMBINING THESE LOTS WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT. [1:25:04] WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LAND USE AND SITE REVIEW PROCESS [1:25:09] WHICH WILL AFFECT SITE SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. >> SORRY, PLEASE. WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS. [1:25:19] >> SO A COUPLE OF THINGS AND I'M ALSO GOING TO ANSWER A QUESTION [1:25:24] THAT NOBODY ASKED YET. >> I PROBABLY WAS GOING TO TRY. >> WE HAD TWO COMP PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS ON THE [1:25:30] AGENDA TONIGHT AND YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT ONE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE PROJECT. [1:25:35] THAT WAS THE 1501 JOHNSON. WE BROUGHT IN THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, THE REZONING, THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND THE [1:25:41] VARIANCE. THIS ONE IS THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ONLY. WHEN WE ADOPTED MINNEAPOLIS 2040 [1:25:48] AND ANTICIPATED THE NEED FOR MORE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS THAN WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A SITE-SPECIFIC BUILT FORM [1:25:56] MAP, WE LAID OUT A PROCESS THAT HAS A SEQUENTIAL REVIEW, MEANING [1:26:02] FIRST YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR YOUR COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, GET THAT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CITY'S [1:26:09] PROCESS AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S PROCESS AND THEN COME BACK FOR THE REST OF YOUR LAND [1:26:14] USE APPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE DID THAT PRIMARILY BECAUSE [1:26:21] THERE WERE CONCERNS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE 60 DAY LAW. MEANING WE HAVE TO ACT WITHIN 60 [1:26:27] DAYS, WE CAN EXTEND THAT TO 120, BUT WITHOUT KNOWING HOW LONG THE [1:26:33] COUNCIL PROCESS WAS GOING TO TAKE IN THERE, WE WERE NERVOUS ABOUT MEETING THAT. SO WE LAID OUT A SEQUENTIAL [1:26:40] PROCESS. WE'VE DONE A FEW OF THESE NOW AND THOUGHT MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT. [1:26:46] BUT WE NEEDED ENOUGH DATA TO KNOW IF WE COULD MEET THE 60 DAY [1:26:52] LAW WITH A CONCURRENT REVIEW. SO WE HAVE GIVEN A COUPLE OF [1:26:58] DEVELOPERS THE OPTION OF DOING THAT BUT THEY NEEDED TO GIVE US [1:27:05] A 60 DAY EXTENSION UP FRONT WHICH IS WHY IT'S A BIT OF A RISK ON THE PART OF THE [1:27:11] APPLICANT TO BE A TEST CASE. 1501 JOHNSON WAS A TEST CASE FOR THAT. WE HAD ONE OTHER THAT WAS A TEST [1:27:18] CASE THAT WAS LIKE A REMNANT RAIL PARCEL OFF UNIVERSITY NEAR ANNIE'S PARLOR WHICH NO ONE [1:27:24] PROBABLY EVEN NOTICED THAT ONE BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTY BARE BONES. [1:27:31] SO THE APPLICANT IS FOLLOWING THE PROCESS THAT WAS LAID OUT BY STAFF BY BRINGING FORWARD THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT BY ITSELF. [1:27:37] ONCE WE HAD ENOUGH OF THESE, WE WERE GOING TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A MEETING [1:27:43] AND SAY WHAT DO YOU THINK. I THINK BASED ON HOW THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TONIGHT, I'M GETTING A PRETTY GOOD [1:27:51] PICTURE OF PERHAPS WHAT THE PREFERCE OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE, BUT THAT IS A CONVERSATION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. SO THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING [1:27:57] THIS FORWARD BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE PROCESS NEEDS TO GO TO FIRST ASK FOR THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND THEN TO COME BACK [1:28:03] THROUGH. THE MATERIALS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET DO SHOW THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE INTENDED [1:28:08] TO BUILD, BUT IT'S NOT TO THE POINT THAT IT WOULD BE FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION BECAUSE THIS STEP HAS TO COME [1:28:14] FIRST. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. >> THEN I WAS ALSO GOING TO NOTE [1:28:21] TO DEVELOP THE SITE THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE [1:28:29] POSSIBLE PATH FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S SPLIT ZONING CURRENTLY. THEY CAN'T COMBINE THE PARCELS AND BUILD ONE BUILDING WITH THE [1:28:34] ZONING THAT'S ON THERE RIGHT NOW UNLESS THEY APPLIED SOMETHING CALLED THE SPLIT ZONING OVERLAY [1:28:40] DISTRICT WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THE PART THAT'S IN THE CORRIDOR SIX HAS TO CONFORM TO THE CORRIDOR SIX WHICH HAS SOME [1:28:46] MINIMUM HEIGHT AND F.A.R. REQUIREMENTS AND THE PART THAT'S IN THE INTERIOR THREE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERIOR [1:28:53] THREE WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT EXERCISE TO GO THROUGH. >> WHICH ACTUALLY IS PRECISELY [1:28:59] THE KIND OF THING THAT I WAS TRYING TO LEAD TOWARDS, IT'S THE [1:29:06] ENCAPSULATION OF THE LOTS THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGER CHALLENGES FOR ME. [1:29:14] BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT FIRE CODES, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT GREEN SPACES THAT YOU'RE MISSING THAT SUDDENLY IF WE'RE CHANGING THIS, [1:29:20] THAT ENCROACHES CONSIDERABLY ONTO THOSE NEIGHBORS JUST ONE [1:29:26] LOT DOWN THAT I'M SURE THEY DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOME. SO THAT IS PRECISELY, AND I GET [1:29:34] THAT -- BUT THAT IS THE GOAL EVEN IF WE'RE TRYING TO BE DOING TIMING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT [1:29:41] SPACE, THE GOAL IS THIS SEVEN STORY BUILDING WHERE IT'S ALL TOGETHER. SO I DO BELIEVE IT'S PERTINENT TO TALK ABOUT IT. [1:29:47] SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, KIMBERLY, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. [1:29:52] >> ANYONE ELSE? [1:30:00] THANK YOU. WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. HOW MANY OF Y'ALL WANTED TO SPEAK? FOUR OF YOU. YOU CAN GO IN ORDER FROM LEFT TO [1:30:05] RIGHT HERE. TELL US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE AND [1:30:11] PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY. >> MY NAME IS JOSH QUILL. MY ADDRESS IS 3024 12th AVENUE. [1:30:17] I AM ADJACENT TO THESE PROPERTIES. SO THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [1:30:26] THE CONCEPT WE GOT AT THE HEARING IN JANUARY WAS 80 UNITS. [1:30:34] THE AGENDA HERE, THE REPORT THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING SAYS 90 UNITS. I COUNTED THE NUMBER OF HOUSES [1:30:42] ON THE STREET THAT WILL EXIST WHEN IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO GO FORWARD, AND THERE ARE ONLY 15 HOUSES ON THIS STREET. A COUPLE OF THEM MULTIUSE. [1:30:50] WE'RE GOING TO BE QUADRUPLING THE SIZE OF PEOPLE LIVING ON ONE [1:30:57] STREET THAT'S ALREADY PLENTY BUSY AND ACROSS THE WAY IS A PROJECT THAT HAS AN EVENT [1:31:02] CENTER, A RESTAURANT, AND SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES SCHOOL BUSES FOR STUDENTS GOING ON. [1:31:09] WHICH IS A GREAT USE FOR THAT PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE ALREADY GETTING BUSIER AS IT IS. [1:31:14] THIS WILL MAKE IT MUCH WORSE. IT'S GOING TO BE REAL [1:31:20] CHALLENGING LOOKING OUT AS YOU SAID, I DIDN'T PLAN WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 25 YEARS AGO TO [1:31:26] BE LOOKING OUT OF AND IT'S NOT A DUPLEX. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 1200 [1:31:33] SQUARE FEET, LOOKING AT A SEVEN STORY BUILDING. THE PROJECT THAT THEY PROVIDED [1:31:38] TO US WOULD HAVE A PARKING RAMP TO UNDERGROUND PARKING THAT I'LL [1:31:44] BE LOOKING AT FROM MY KITCHEN WINDOW, I'LL SEE VEHICLES GO BACK AND FORTH. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE [1:31:50] THEY'RE GOING TO PLAN TO PUT THAT SNOW, ARE THEY GOING TO PUT IT IN THE ALLEY OR THE STREET? THAT'S A LOT OF SNOW TO MOVE IF [1:31:57] WE EVER HAVE SNOWY WINTERS AGAIN. WE DO, THE NEIGHBORS WHO SHOWED UP, AND I WILL SAY THERE WERE [1:32:02] PROBABLY THE NUMBER OF 20 WAS PROBABLY ACCURATE AT THAT HEARING. [1:32:08] WHAT WASN'T SAID IS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE IN SUPPORT, I WILL NOT DENY THAT, THE MAJORITY OF THE [1:32:14] PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY WITHIN A BLOCK OR TWO WERE EITHER NEUTRAL OR NOT IN SUPPORT OF A PROJECT [1:32:23] OF THIS SCALE. IT'S SO MUCH FOR THIS SPACE. [1:32:29] I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER SEVEN STORY BUILDINGS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON LAKE STREET. [1:32:34] OTHER THAN THE SEARS BUILDING OR GLOBAL MARKETPLACE, MIDTOWN GLOBAL. [1:32:40] NOTHING IS THAT TALL. FIVE STORY, FOUR STORY, NOT SEVEN STORY. [1:32:47] IT'S REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE THE [1:32:52] SCALE OF THIS I FEEL LIKE I'M GOING TO BE LIVING IN UP. I'M GOING TO BE THE OLD MAN AND I DON'T HAVE BALLOONS TO TAKE MY [1:33:01] HOUSE AWAY. IT'S REALLY HARD. AND TO YOUR QUESTION ON BUS STOPS, IT USED TO BE AT 12th AND [1:33:06] NOW AT 13th. BUT THAT WILL ONLY BE SERVED BY THE 21 FOLKS AND 10th ALSO. [1:33:12] THOSE ARE THE BUS STOPS FOR THE 21. IF YOU WANT TO GET ON THE BUS RAPID TRANSIT, YOU HAVE TO GO [1:33:17] FOUR BLOCKS TO EITHER BLOOMINGTON OR CHICAGO TO GET THE BUS RAPID TRANSIT THAT [1:33:23] THEY'RE INSTALLING. SO IN TERMS OF, IT'S NOT AS CONVENIENT AS IT COULD BE, AS IT [1:33:31] USED TO BE WITH THE INCLUSION OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND HAVING TO WALK TO ACCESS THAT MORE FREQUENT SERVICE. [1:33:36] SO I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THANK YOU. I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT WE HAVE UNTIL 6:30. [1:33:42] SO I'M GOING TO ASK EACH PERSON TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO TWO MINUTES FROM HERE ON OUT. [1:33:49] >> ALSO IF YOU'D BE SO KIND, ANYONE ELSE WHO COMES TO SPEAK IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO COME AND SIGN UP OVER HERE FOR OUR [1:33:54] RECORD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MUCH APPRECIATED. >> NEXT SPEAKER. [1:34:07] >> MY NAME IS JASON MEYERS. 3039 12th AVENUE SOUTH. [1:34:12] I LIVE BEHIND THE STREET THAT WILL BE IMPACTED. I GOT A PICTURE FROM A RANDOM DAY. CAN YOU SEE THAT BY CHANCE? [1:34:18] >> NO, LET ME TURN THAT ON. >> IT MIGHT BE HARD TO SEE. >> WE CAN SEE IT. [1:34:24] >> SO PICTURE FROM A RANDOM DAY TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET LOOKING OUT TO LAKE STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE NO [1:34:30] PARKING SPOTS. AND AS MY NEIGHBOR JOSH JUST [1:34:39] MENTIONED TO PUT AN 80 TO 90 UNIT BUILDING RIGHT ON THAT CORNER WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN [1:34:45] THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE WAS 30 OR SO PARKING SPOTS UNDERGROUND. AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS PARKING I [1:34:52] DON'T KNOW WHERE. SO HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE CARRYING THEIR GROCERIES TO THEIR APARTMENTS WHERE THEY ARE [1:35:01] GOING TO, THE BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO PARK, [1:35:10] THIS BUILDING ALSO CALLS FOR BUSINESS SPACE ON THE LOWER LEVEL. THAT'S THE PLAN THAT WAS SHARED. [1:35:15] FREEZE FREEZE I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING BUSINESS WHEN NO ONE [1:35:21] CAN PARK THERE TO USE WHATEVER [1:35:26] THEY'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO SELL THERE. AS JOSH MENTIONED AS WELL, HE'S ACCURATE OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP AT THAT MEETING, [1:35:32] EVERYONE WHO WAS ON THAT STREET WHO LIVES ON THE STREET WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. [1:35:39] BUT I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT EVERYONE THERE WAS ALSO EXCITED ABOUT DEVELOPING THIS CORNER. [1:35:47] AND ALSO FOR HAVING NEW NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE WHO CAN LIVE WITH US AND BE A PART OF THIS GREAT COMMUNITY, IT'S THE [1:35:52] SIZE OF THE BUILDING, IT'S THE POOR PLANNING AROUND PARKING AND THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD [1:35:58] WHICH IS THE CONCERN. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THIS [1:36:06] PROPERTY HAS UNDERGONE A DRAMATIC DECLINE SINCE THE CURRENT OWNERS HAVE PURCHASED IT. [1:36:11] SO WE'VE LIVED ON THIS BLOCK FOR 13 YEARS. I'M SORRY, 15 YEARS. [1:36:17] AND FOR MOST OF THAT TIME, THAT CORNER WAS RELATIVELY STABLE. THE BUILDING WAS KEPT UP. [1:36:25] AND IT WAS NOT BEAUTIFUL, BUT IT WAS KEPT UP AND REPAIRED WHEN THINGS WERE BROKEN. [1:36:31] THE CURRENT OWNERS THE BUILDING HAS IF YOU DRIVE BY THAT [1:36:36] BUILDING ON LAKE STREET, IT'S THE ABSOLUTE WORST BUILDING ON ALL OF LAKE STREET AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS. [1:36:42] EVER SINCE THE CURRENT OWNERS TOOK THAT PROPERTY OVER. THEY ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF [1:36:50] GRAFFITI. THEY'RE NOT TAKING CARE OF BROKEN WINDOWS. I'LL WRAP IT UP REAL QUICK. [1:36:56] THE BUILDING THAT WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY MEETING IN WAS ALSO A VACANT BUILDING ON 12th STREET, [1:37:03] GRAFFITI ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING AS WELL. SO I HAVE VERY LOW CONFIDENCE IN [1:37:12] EXTENDING THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TURNING THEM OVER TO THIS GROUP TO DEVELOP AND THEY [1:37:18] CAN'T TAKE CARE OF ONE PROPERTY VERY WELL, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE CARE OF 90 PEOPLE? [1:37:24] I WOULDN'T WANT PEOPLE THAT I LIVE IN A BUILDING LIKE THAT. >> THANK YOU. [1:37:29] NEXT SPEAKER. [1:37:38] >> HELLO, CHAIRPERSON MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JARED CRUZ. THANK YOU. [1:37:44] I, ALONG WITH MY WIFE, LIVE ON 3028 12th AVENUE SOUTH. SO WE'RE TWO HOUSES RIGHT NEXT [1:37:51] TO JOSH AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I'VE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE FOR 21 [1:37:57] YEARS AND WE RAISED OUR DAUGHTER IN THIS HOUSE. [1:38:03] I AM IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED LOW [1:38:09] INCOME HOUSING AS WELL AS DENSITY, HOWEVER IT'S REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE A 7-STORY [1:38:17] BUILDING AS WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH POSSIBLE 90 UNITS IN OUR RESIDENTIAL BLOCK. [1:38:24] I DON'T KNOW OF ANY COMPARABLE HEIGHT BUILDING IN PHILLIPS OR POWDER HORN. THERE IS, I THINK, A FIVE STORY [1:38:31] ON 12th NEAR THE GREENWAY, BUT OF COURSE THAT'S ON THE GREENWAY. VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF SITUATION. [1:38:40] IT'S REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE ANYTHING MORE THAN A FLOOR WITH THE KIND OF TRAFFIC THAT WE GET. [1:38:49] THERE'S ALSO APARTMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 31st ON 12th. THERE'S LAKE STREET TRAFFIC. [1:38:54] THERE'S PARKING FOR THE NEW BUSINESS AS JOSH HAS MENTIONED. [1:39:00] SO WE ALREADY ARE DEALING WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND A LOT OF PARKING ISSUES. [1:39:09] BESIDES THE FACT AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE AN INCREASE OF LIKE 5 OR 6 TIMES [1:39:16] OUR CURRENT DENSITY. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT THAT OUR [1:39:21] PARTICULAR BLOCK WOULD BE HIT WITH SUCH A DENSITY INCREASE. I'M FINE WITH A DENSITY INCREASE [1:39:28] AS I SAID, BUT I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNREASONABLE. [1:39:35] SO I GUESS I'LL STOP THERE. BUT JUST TO SAY THAT AGAIN, I [1:39:42] THINK IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE AND WE'RE WILLING TO I THINK [1:39:48] SUPPORT LOW INCOME HOUSING IF WE CAN KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM [1:39:53] BEING INCREASED BY A LEVEL OF FIVE WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT TOO HIGH. [1:39:58] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. [1:40:11] >> MY NAME IS KRISTIN BLUE. I LIVE AT 3028 12th AVENUE SOUTH. THAT'S MY SPOUSE WHO JUST [1:40:17] TALKED. I THINK THIS PARTICULAR HEARING IS ABOUT THE REZONING AND I HAVE [1:40:23] CONCERNS ABOUT CHANGING SINGLE [1:40:29] FAMILY TO MORE DENSITY FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE. BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF [1:40:35] KIDS ON THE BLOCK THAT PLAY IN THEIR FRONT YARDS AND PLAY IN THEIR BACKYARDS. AND TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A THING. [1:40:43] BRINGING BABIES OUT TO THE CAR WHEN WE'VE GOT SO MUCH DENSITY THERE. IT'S JUST HARD TO IMAGINE. [1:40:54] AND SO I PERSONALLY WOULD BE AGAINST ANY PREMIUM TO TAKE IT [1:40:59] HIGHER WHICH I KNOW IS FOR THE FUTURE. I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT CHANGING THE INTERIOR THREE PART TO A CORRIDOR SIX. [1:41:09] AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DEVELOPED. I KNOW THAT IT'S A COMPLICATED [1:41:15] THING. I'M IN SUPPORT OF LOW-INCOME [1:41:21] HOUSING. BUT THE LEVEL AND DENSITY IS WHERE MY CONCERN IS. [1:41:26] >> THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [1:41:32] I'M GOING TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS AND THEN TURN TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I STRONGLY, STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION. [1:41:37] IF WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS OUR CLIMATE GOALS, THIS IS THE TYPE OF PLACE WHERE WE NEED TO BE [1:41:45] ALLOWING A LOT MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE TO BE ON THE B LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT, CLOSE TO A [1:41:53] GROCERY STORE AND ALL OF THE OTHER DIFFERENT STORES LIKE THE MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET A BLOCK [1:42:01] AWAY FROM THE GREENWAY. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND CHOOSE NOT TO DRIVE IF [1:42:07] THEY DON'T WANT TO. AND OUR TASK TODAY IS TO FIND WHETHER THIS APPLICATION FITS WITHIN THE GOALS OF THE 2040 [1:42:13] PLAN AND STAFF HAVE LISTED A LOT OF DIFFERENT GOALS THAT IT [1:42:19] REACHES, LIKE ALMOST LOOKS LIKE QUITE A FEW GOALS. [1:42:26] AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL GOODS AND SERVICES. [1:42:33] I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO WORK TO REVITALIZE LAKE STREET AND PROVIDE MORE CUSTOMERS FOR [1:42:39] THOSE BUSINESSES THAT WILL HELP SUSTAIN MIDTOWN MARKET AND OTHER [1:42:45] BUSINESSES. TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING COMMISSIONER CONLEY SAID, I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM IF WE CONCENTRATE ALL OF THE DENSITY [1:42:51] RIGHT ON THE MAIN CORRIDORS. [1:42:56] IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE ON THE ONE HAND MEETING THE GOAL OF BEING CLOSE TO THE TRANSIT STATIONS, [1:43:02] BUT THEN WE'RE CONCENTRATING ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHERE ALL OF THE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION IS. I FEEL LIKE THE IDEAL PLACES TO [1:43:08] HAVE ADDED DENSITY ARE THE PLACES THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE TRANSIT STATIONS WHICH I WOULD DEFINE AS BEING WITHIN A HALF [1:43:14] MILE WHICH IS ABOUT A TEN MINUTE WALK, CLOSE TO GREENWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT FAR ENOUGH REMOVED THAT [1:43:22] YOU'RE JUST OFF THE CORRIDOR, SO YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. [1:43:28] SO I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT MEETS [1:43:33] THE 2040 PLAN'S GOALS AND AS WE CONTEMPLATE THE 2050 PLAN, I THINK WE SHOULD GO A LITTLE BIT [1:43:40] FURTHER. COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU KNOW, OUR ITEM HERE IS [1:43:47] PRETTY CUT AND DRY. WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIGNIFICANT [1:43:52] EVIDENCE THAT CHANGING FROM AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO CORRIDOR MIXED USE MAKES SENSE ACCORDING TO THE 2040 PLAN. [1:44:00] AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE. WHAT I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND [1:44:07] BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT AND AS WE HEARD, THERE'S [1:44:12] GOING TO BE SEVERAL OTHER PARTS OF THIS PROJECT THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE MORE [1:44:24] INTENTIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS AND MORE FREQUENT. REALLY HELP RESIDENTS DESIGN [1:44:29] WHAT COULD BE POSSIBLE HERE. IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR ALL. [1:44:37] I THINK THAT A COMPROMISE CAN BE FOUND. I WOULD ALSO REALLY ENCOURAGE, [1:44:45] WE HAVE TALKED BEFORE ON THIS [1:44:50] BODY ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF [1:44:55] PUBLIC WORKS TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THESE PROJECTS, THINGS LIKE SPEED BUMPS OR MID-WALK CROSSWALKS. [1:45:02] ANYTHING TO MAKE IT SAFER FOR THE PEDESTRIANS THAT WE WANT TO GET ONTO LAKE STREET TO [1:45:07] PATRONIZE THE BUSINESSES TO MAKE IT FOUR BLOCKS TO THE B LINE STATIONS, ET CETERA. BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE [1:45:14] INCORPORATED INTO A PROJECT THAT MAKE IT PALATABLE AND EASIER FOR [1:45:19] THE RESIDENTS WHO OBVIOUSLY WANT MORE NEIGHBORS TO FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE A PART OF THE PROJECT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD [1:45:25] JUST REALLY STRESS KNOWING THAT I WILL NEED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, IT JUST MAKES SENSE. [1:45:31] BUT AS FURTHER APPLICATIONS COME BEFORE THE BODY, I'M GOING TO WANT TO SEE ROBUST ENGAGEMENT [1:45:38] AND THE INCLUSION OF PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE THIS STREET, 12th, [1:45:48] A LOT SAFER GIVEN THAT THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE. [1:45:54] AND THAT COULD EVEN INCLUDE THINGS LIKE WHAT DOES THE BUILDING LIGHTING LOOK LIKE. [1:46:02] WHAT DOES THE PLANTS AND ALL OF [1:46:08] THAT LOOK LIKE. WE'VE SEEN OTHER PROJECTS WHERE THE DEVELOPER WORKED TO GET A [1:46:15] CROSSWALK FROM MID DEVELOPMENT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. THERE'S JUST WAYS THAT WE CAN REALLY HEAR FROM OUR NEIGHBORS [1:46:21] AND I THINK CREATIVE IDEAS LIKE THAT ARE WHAT CAN REALLY MAKE OR BREAK A PROJECT LIKE THIS. [1:46:26] THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. [1:46:36] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I'M ALSO GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. [1:46:41] IT MATCHES WITH THE GOALS OF THIS CITY LIKE CHAIR MEYER SAID. [1:46:49] SIX LOTS JOINING WITH COMMERCIAL TRANSIT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE [1:46:54] BUILDING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICY AND THIS SEEMS LIKE GOOD POLICY. IN REGARDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, I THINK ONE THING THAT [1:47:00] THE APPLICANT COULD CONSIDER AND THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN ALLOWED BY [1:47:08] ZONING CODE. BUT THEY COULD CONSIDER A STEP DOWN. WE SEE THIS IN OUR ZONING CODE. [1:47:14] WE SEE WHERE WE HAVE CORRIDOR 6 BY LAKE STREET AND WE HAVE INTERIOR THREE AND INTERIOR TWO. SO I THINK ONE THING THAT THE [1:47:20] APPLICANT COULD CONSIDER HERE TO APPEASE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, RATHER THAN HAVING A 7 OR 8 STORY MASS ALL THE WAY TO THE [1:47:27] END, MAYBE A COUPLE OF LOTS WITH 50 OR 100 FEET OF A LITTLE BIT [1:47:33] SMALLER BUILT FORM MASS. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR THE APPLICANT AND THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN YOUR [1:47:39] NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. BUT I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [1:47:48] DID AN ENGINEER LOOK AT THIS AT ALL AND THE IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THESE SINGLE [1:47:54] FAMILY HOMES AS YOU DIG DEEP TO CREATE A SEVEN-STORY BUILDING WHEN SOUTHWEST LRT NEARLY SHOOK [1:48:02] THE FOUNDATION OF HIGH-RISES. LIKE I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND [1:48:08] THE INCOMPLETE NATURE OF OUR THINKING ON THIS. AND I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT CHAIR [1:48:15] MEYER SAYS ARE CLIMATE GOALS, GETTING RID OF GREENSPACE. [1:48:21] IMPORTING IN ALL OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS? I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT OUR [1:48:26] CLIMATE GOALS INVOLVE LOCALLY FIXING UP WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S JUST ME. BUT YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT GOALS AND I'M JUST GOING TO [1:48:31] READ, IT SAYS AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. [1:48:37] I KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE MY STUDENTS. LOW INCOME STUDENTS THAT ARE LARGELY SPANISH SPEAKING LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THEY HAVE A [1:48:43] LOT OF MULTIGENERATIONAL PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DISPLACING. [1:48:51] AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY ALL WE'RE CARING ABOUT ARE ZONING. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT GO INTO MY CONSIDERATION WHEN I [1:48:57] WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE TO ME WE [1:49:02] HAVEN'T -- MINNEAPOLIS 2040 WAS ALREADY UP ZONED. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S ALL BEEN BUILT IN, RIGHT. [1:49:09] SO WE WERE ALREADY JUMPING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO POTENTIALLY THREE STORY WITH HOWEVER MANY UNITS COULD FIT [1:49:14] INSIDE OF IT. THAT'S FINE. BUT NOW WE'RE GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO A HIGH-RISE. [1:49:20] AND I WATCHED THAT KIND OF REALLY RIDICULOUS PLANNING GO [1:49:26] HAPPEN IN CALIFORNIA WHERE SOMEBODY MENTIONED THE MOVIE "UP". I ACTUALLY LIVED IN A [1:49:32] SEVEN-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SURROUNDED BY TOWERS. I GOT TO KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO [1:49:38] LIVED THERE AND THEY TOLD ME HOW IT WAS THEIR GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE WHO WOULDN'T SELL OUT WHEN EVERYONE SOLD OUT. [1:49:44] IT WAS SUCH A WEIRD STORY. BUT I WAS LIKE THAT'S WHAT L.A. DID AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S [1:49:52] THE WISEST WAY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. SO I DON'T SUPPORT THIS. AGAIN, I KNOW HOW THE WIND [1:49:58] BLOWS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT BLOW ME OVER THIS TIME. SO I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS. [1:50:04] >> I'M SORT OF WAVERING ON THIS. WHAT I REALLY LIKED WAS THIS [1:50:12] CONCEPT OF HAVING SORT OF THE THREE PROJECTS TOGETHER, THE [1:50:19] ZONING, THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT GIVES US A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING TO [1:50:24] HAPPEN. IF WE REZONE THIS NOW, THERE'S JUST NO TELLING. SO THIS APPLICANT IS HERE NOW, BUT WHO KNOWS, WE DON'T KNOW. [1:50:34] SO THAT'S WHERE I'M LEANING. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK IT ALSO GIVES US [1:50:39] A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. MAYBE THE STEP DOWNS, ALL OF [1:50:46] THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO MAYBE MAKE IT WORK. I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO THE [1:50:51] CONVERSATION ABOUT OWNERS BEING RESPONSIBLE. I WORKED FOR THE CITY FOR MANY YEARS AND REASONABLE OWNERSHIP [1:50:59] IN MY WORK LIFE CAREER WAS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND ANYWAY, I AM LEANING I THINK [1:51:05] AS I'M TALKING AGAINST IT BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE ALL THREE TOGETHER. [1:51:11] THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [1:51:20] I AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING WE SAID. I MEAN THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, [1:51:27] BECAUSE I DO THINK IT MAKES SENSE. I AM EXTREMELY EMPATHETIC WITH FOLKS ON THE TRANSITION OF THESE [1:51:33] ZONING AREAS. IT'S INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING. [1:51:39] BUT I BELIEVE WE CAN BUILD OUR WAY OUT OF THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT PROVIDES THE DENSITY THAT [1:51:44] WE NEED AND CAN MAKE THOSE [1:51:50] TRANSITIONS. I THINK WE THINK SO OFTEN THAT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THE LAKE STREET IS THE FRONT YARD [1:51:58] FORGETTING PERHAPS THE BACKYARD IS THE DOOR TO THE NEIGHBORS FOR THE NORTH. AND I THINK I ENCOURAGE THE DESIGN TEAM AND THE OWNER TO [1:52:04] CONSIDER THAT EVERY TIME. I THINK IT'S A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING THESE PROJECTS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD [1:52:10] WITH SUCH GREAT TRANSFORMATION. WE SHOULD TAKE THOSE SERIOUSLY. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING STAFF [1:52:15] RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT [1:52:21] STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMP AMENDMENT. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. [1:52:26] >> COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. [1:52:31] I JUST HAD A QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS ON THE [1:52:37] PROJECT FOLLOWING THIS VOTE? >> SO THE FIRST NEXT STEPS THAT RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS THAT IT NEEDS [1:52:44] TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO IT WILL GO TO THE BIS COMMITTEE, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE FULL CITY COUNCIL. [1:52:49] IF APPROVED THERE, IT WILL THEN GO TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. ONCE THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS [1:52:55] FULLY APPROVED, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK THROUGH AND DO THE NEXT STEPS ON [1:53:00] THE PROJECT WHICH WOULD INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM AN APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES TO MATCH [1:53:07] THE ZONING OR THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION AND ANY ASSORTED APPLICATIONS [1:53:15] THAT ARE NEEDED TO BRING THE PROJECT FORWARD. SO THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL [1:53:21] NOTIFICATION, STEP, WE OBVIOUSLY ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH ANYONE WHO'S ENGAGED IN THE [1:53:28] PROCESS THUS FAR AS THEY CONTINUE THOSE NEXT STEPS. [1:53:33] >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. [1:53:46] I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THE DISCUSSION FURTHERS WITH ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE COUNCIL [1:53:52] MEMBER FOR THE AREA TO GET TO WEIGH IN. BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE REALLY GOOD POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP [1:53:58] BY COMMISSIONERS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO THE RESIDENTS. I LOVE THAT IDEA OF STEP DOWN [1:54:03] THAT COMMISSIONER WAGNER BROUGHT UP. AND THEN OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBORS HERE. I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU [1:54:09] COMING HERE AND SOME OF YOU STATING YOUR INTERESTS IN INCREASED ZONING IN THE AREA, [1:54:15] INCREASED DENSITY IN HOUSING, BUT ALSO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU MADE HERE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A [1:54:23] PRETTY DELIBERATIVE PROCESS BEFORE US. SO I THINK I'M INCLINED TO [1:54:28] SUPPORT IT SO IT CAN CONTINUE TO [1:54:34] MOVE FORWARD AND I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE CONSTITUENTS HERE [1:54:40] TO BE INVOLVED IN THE NEXT PROCESS OF ZONING AND CONNECT WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER THERE. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? [1:54:47] >> AGAIN, I'M INCLINED TO SAY NO BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM ALL TOGETHER. [1:54:52] I THINK IT'S THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE IN SOME WAYS. [1:54:57] BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T ZONED BEFORE OR IT WASN'T THE COMP PLAN BEFORE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME AND [1:55:03] HAD WE KNOWN, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY COMPLEX ARGUMENT. AND I DO LIKE WHAT WE SAW WITH [1:55:11] THE JOHNSON'S PROPERTY JUST NOW. I FELT THAT WAS A LOT MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND IT REALLY MADE [1:55:16] ME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. [1:55:21] >> NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE. I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE [1:55:26] CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CHOWDHURY. [1:55:31] >> AYE. >> CONLEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. [1:55:37] >> JONES. >> NAY. >> THOMPSON. [1:55:42] >> NO. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> MEYER. >> AYE. [1:55:47] >> WE HAVE SIX AYES AND TWO NAYS. >> THAT MOTION IS ADOPTED. [1:55:55] THAT CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. [1:56:01] NOW A RESOLUTION FOR FORMER COMMISSIONER ALYSSA OLSEN. SHE WASN'T ABLE TO JOIN US [1:56:06] TODAY, BUT SHE IS WATCHING WITH HER NEWBORN SON, GLEN. I'VE GOT A PHOTO OF GLEN IF [1:56:12] PEOPLE WANT TO COME OVER AND SEE HIM. [1:56:18] SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ OFF THIS RESOLUTION THAT WE PREPARED TO HONOR HER. A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR [1:56:25] ALYSSA OLSEN FOR HER DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS ALYSSA HAS SERVED ON THE CITY OF [1:56:31] MINNEAPOLIS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE 2019. WHEREAS ALYSSA HAS PARTICIPATED IN OVER 140 PLANNING COMMISSION [1:56:37] PUBLIC HEARINGS, MAKING DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON [1:56:43] OVER 1,495 PLAN USE OPERATIONS, [1:56:48] ONE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND NUMEROUS ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. AND WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED AS [1:56:56] PRESIDENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM 2022 TO 2024 AND WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PLANNING [1:57:02] COMMISSION FROM 2021 TO 2022. WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED AS SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2020. [1:57:08] WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ITS 100TH A ANNIVERSARY. [1:57:14] AND WHEREAS ALYSSA HAS DEMONSTRATED TREMENDOUS GENEROSITY AND DEDICATION IN SHARING HER TIME AND KNOWLEDGE. [1:57:20] WHEREAS THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION WISHES TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE ALYSSA'S DEDICATED [1:57:25] SERVICE TO THE CITY'S PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND [1:57:31] THE STAFF OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS THAT WE THANK ALYSSA OLSEN FOR HER THANKFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE IN [1:57:37] EXTENDING THE PROGRESS OF THIS CITY AND PROMOTING THE WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE. AND THAT WE EXTEND HER OUR BEST [1:57:44] WISHES FOR GOOD HEALTH AND HAPPINESS TRUSTING THAT THE FRIENDSHIPS AND UNDERSTANDINGS BUILT IN OUR MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS [1:57:51] WILL BE WITH US ALWAYS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] [1:57:57] >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THAT IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU, ALYSSA. >> MY APOLOGIES FOR ALYSSA FOR [1:58:04] NOT HAVING THAT AT HER LAST MEETING. I ENDED UP BEING SICK THAT DAY AND WE DIDN'T GET IT. [1:58:10] >> THAT WAS OUR FINAL ITEM. OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS APRIL 28TH AND WE HAVE NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE [1:58:17] THIS THURSDAY. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM STAFF? >> I HAVE ONE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE THAT WE NEED TO GET IN IN ONE MINUTE WHICH IS WE [1:58:23] DON'T HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS WEEK, BUT ON MAY 15TH [1:58:28] AT 6:00 P.M. WE HAVE THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION CLICK [1:58:33] MEETING AND THAT'S NOT A COW MEETING, THAT REQUIRES FULL QUORUM OF THE PLANNING [1:58:39] COMMISSION, SO WE NEED A MINIMUM OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS THERE TO HAVE THAT VERY IMPORTANT MEETING. [1:58:45] AGAIN THAT'S MAY 15TH AT 6:00 P.M. >> MAY 15TH. PUT IT ON YOUR CALENDARS. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> ANYONE ELSE? [1:58:52] WE ARE ADJOURNED.