[0:01] MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION-NOVEMBER 3, 2025.

[0:19] >> ALL RIGHT WE'RE BACK. I WILL RECALL THE MEETING FOR

[0:24] THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NOVEMBER 3, 2025. WE HAVE TO REDO SOME THINGS SO IT'S CAPTIONED FOR THE AUDIENCE

[0:29] AT HOME. SO I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL AGAIN WHEN SHE'S READY.

[0:39] >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY. >> HERE. >> FORNEY. >> HERE.

[0:44] >> GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES IS ABSENT. SKJEFTE IS ABSENT.

[0:50] SHEPPARD. >> HERE. >> WAGNER. >> HERE. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY. >> HERE. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER.

[0:55] >> HERE. >> THERE ARE SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE

[1:01] MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2025? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

[1:06] >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] . >> OPPOSED? THAT IS ADOPTED?

[1:11] THEN FOR OUR AGENDA, WE HAD GONE WITH WE WILL HAVE ITEMS 4 AND 5

[1:17] ON CONSENT AND ITEMS 6, 7, AND 8 ON DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THAT

[1:24] AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE

[1:30] [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED? THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. NOW I WILL REOPEN THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF ANYONE WANTED TO SPEAK TO

[1:36] ITEMS 4 OR 5, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO ITEMS 4 OR 5?

[1:41] ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY. SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[1:47] COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON ITEMS 4 OR FIVE?

[1:53] ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT OUR CONSENT AGENDA? >> SO MOVED.

[2:00] >> ALL RIGHT, ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[2:06] [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? ITEMS 4 AND 5 ARE ADOPTED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER

[2:14] SIX. 4301 LAKE STREET EAST.

[2:39] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSAL TO

[2:44] VACATE A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR THE ALLEY BEHIND THE PROPERTY OF 4301 LAKE

[2:51] STREET EAST. I WILL GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT IN THIS PRESENTATION. BUT JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE

[2:57] PICTURE THAT'S ON THE SLIDE NOW, THIS PRIGS -- PROPOSAL IS ONLY

[3:04] TO VACATE WHAT YOU SEE IN THE SOLID RED RECTANGLE HERE.

[3:10] AND WOULD NOT IMPACT THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY RUNNING THROUGH THIS WALL. JUST TO GIVE YOU A CONTEXT ON

[3:16] THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THIS IS FOR THE BLOCK THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE STREET EAST AND OTHERWISE BOUNDED BY 31st

[3:23] STREET EAST TO THE SOUTH AND 33rd AND 34TH AVENUES TO THE WEST AND EAST SIDES.

[3:31] IT PRIMARILY CONSISTS OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTIES WEST OF LAKE STREET.

[3:37] THE CONCRETE ALLEY THAT RUNS THROUGH THIS BLOCK THAT'S USED FOR ACCESSING PROPERTIES INCLUDING GARAGES AND TRASH

[3:44] PICKUP, ET CETERA. IT'S MOSTLY AN L-SHAPE CONCRETE ALLEY, SO IF YOU ARE STARTING AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY

[3:50] FROM 31st STREET GOING INTO THE ALLEY, IF YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH, YOU CAN'T CONNECT ALL THE WAY TO LAKE STREET.

[3:56] YOU HAVE TO TURN RIGHT TO THE EAST AND BACK ONTO 44th AVENUE.

[4:02] BUT THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THIS BLOCK, SPECIFICALLY A

[4:08] WESTWARD EXTENSION NEAR THE TURN OF THE ALLEY IS PART OF THAT

[4:14] DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND AGAIN THIS IS PRIMARILY BEHIND THE HIGHLIGHTED PARCEL

[4:20] WHICH IS 4301 LAKE STREET EAST. SO THIS IS ONE OTHER DIRECTLY ADJACENT PARCEL WHICH IS A

[4:25] DUPLEX ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THIS ADDITIONAL DEDICATED

[4:31] RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA IS NOT IMPROVED AS AN EXTENSION FOR ACCESSING THE ALLEYS ON THIS

[4:37] BLOCK. AND IT DOES NOT CONNECT ALL THE WAY TO 43rd AVENUE TO THE WEST.

[4:43] AND ALSO JUST SHOWING THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW SCREEN SHOT HERE AND IF YOU CAN SEE WHERE I PUT THAT

[4:50] RED ARROW ON THE MAP SHOWING WHAT VIEW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO CAPTURE. THIS IS LOOKING TO THE WEST

[4:56] TOWARDS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT FUNCTIONALLY IS BASICALLY AN

[5:01] EXTENSION OF THE PARKING LOT FOR THE 4301 LAKE STREET PARCEL. AND THERE IS A SLIGHT SLOPE UP FROM THE ALLEY LEVEL TO THAT

[5:10] PARKING LOT WITHIN THIS ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF

[5:17] THIS APPLICATION, AGAIN IN THE MAP ON THE LEFT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT VACATING THIS

[5:22] ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS IN THAT SOLID RED RECTANGLE.

[5:27] ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IT'S SHOWING THE SAME AREA ON THE EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THE

[5:32] APPLICANT'S SURVEYOR. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE DOES INCLUDE ANALYSIS AND

[5:38] REVIEW BY NOT JUST MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES IN CPED, BUT ALSO PUBLIC WORKS STAFF. IT'S BEEN FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT

[5:44] PART OF A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. AGAIN THIS SPECIFIC AREA IN QUESTION HERE, NOT NEEDED FOR

[5:50] ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EASE. S FOR UTIL-- EASEMENTS FOR UTIL

[5:58] OR INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED AND

[6:03] BOTH OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A

[6:11] REPRESENTATIVE IN TODAY'S HEARING. BUT I'M READY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE ONE. IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE

[6:16] RECEIVED, THEY ASKED THIS TO DENY THIS SO THAT THEY CAN PRESERVE THIS AS A GREEN SPACE.

[6:22] IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE? IF THE CITY WANTED TO TURN IT

[6:28] INTO GREEN SPACE, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THEY WOULD NEED TO DO TO ACCOMPLISH THAT? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONERS,

[6:35] FRANKLY I'M NOT SURE WHAT ALL THAT WOULD ENTAIL.

[6:41] I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT HISTORY OF THIS SPECIFIC AREA OR THIS BLOCK. THERE'S A LOT OF UNUSUAL

[6:47] PLATTING AND FURTHER CHANGES TO PROPERTY LINES IN THIS AREA. SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PIECE

[6:53] TOGETHER THE COMPLETE HISTORY HERE. ULTIMATELY SORT OF THE USE OF

[7:00] DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE CITY IS

[7:05] PRIMARILY HANDLED BY OUR PUBLIC WORKS STAFF. BUT FRANKLY I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXACT STEPS WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN

[7:11] IN ORDER TO CONVERT THIS INTO A FORMAL PUBLIC GREEN SPACE AS AN

[7:18] EXAMPLE. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

[7:24] ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO ASK EACH SPEAKER TO

[7:30] LIMIT YOURSELF TO TWO MINUTES. AND JUST TO NOTE TO SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE SO THAT OUR CAPTIONERS CAN

[7:38] ACCURATELY DOCUMENT YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE AUDIENCE AT HOME. I HAVE THREE SPEAKERS ON MY LIST AND I'LL CALL THEM UP IN ORDER.

[7:45] FIRST I HAVE TYLER AUGUSTINO AND THEN JAY MATIAS WILL BE SECOND

[7:51] AND CATHY ERICSON IS THIRD.

[7:59] >> MY PROPERTY AT 13 AND 3015

[8:04] HAS THE MOST FRONTAGE TO THE PROPOSED VACATION AND I ACTUALLY

[8:11] DO HAVE A COUPLE OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED TO THE STAFF MEMBER THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BE ANSWERED.

[8:17] THE SLIGHT INCLINE IS BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT WAS LEVELED AT THE TIME IT WAS DEVELOPED OR PAVED I SHOULD SAY.

[8:23] AND THEN ALSO THE ALLEY WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A NON LAKE

[8:30] STREET, NONARTERIAL ACCESS TO THAT PARCEL WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO 43rd AVENUE. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY THAT

[8:36] ALLEY EXTENSION EXISTS EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT IN USE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURRENTLY ANY

[8:42] PROPERTY DEVELOPED ON THAT PARCEL.

[8:48] WHAT I HAVE SEEN FROM THE DEVELOPER IS THAT THEY'VE DEVELOPED AND IN THE STAFF REPORT THIS WAS ALLUDED TO,

[8:55] THEY'VE DEVELOPED SEVERAL PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY AND NONE HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND IN THE CITY

[9:01] STAFF REPORT IT SAID THERE'S AN INTENDED FUTURE PROPOSAL FOR

[9:07] DEVEL DEVELOPMENT. AS MULTIPLE PROPOSALS HAVE COME THROUGH, THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH AND THE PROPERTY

[9:12] CONTINUES TO HAVE BLIGHT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD WANT THE CITY TO GIVE UP ITS

[9:19] OPT OPTIONALITY ON THIS PROPERTY AT THE TIME THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS

[9:26] NOT SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE FOLLOW THROUGH ON REDEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. THAT IS WHY I AM OPPOSED TO THIS VACATION AT THIS TIME, NOT

[9:33] PERMANENTLY, BUT AT THIS TIME I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD OR SHOWN THAT PLANS

[9:40] ARE IN PLACE THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW THROUGH ON TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

[9:45] >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE, I CAN'T READ THE FULL FIRST NAME. IT STARTS WITH A J, MATTIAS.

[9:56] >> HELLO, JOEL MATHIAS HERE. FROM WHAT LITTLE I UNDERSTAND OF

[10:03] THIS, IF ANYBODY HERE CAN EXPLAIN TO THE ROOM PRECISELY WHAT A VACATION MEANS, THE

[10:11] IMPLICATIONS THEREOF, WOULD THE COUNTY OR THE CITY BE SELLING THIS TO THE DEVELOPER AND SOME

[10:16] MONEY GET BACK TO THE TAXPAYER? WOULD IT BE GIVEN?

[10:22] THAT'S JUST A CURIOSITY OF MINE. I TEND TO AGREE WITH DR. JOSH

[10:29] HANNEN AT THE RIVER LAKE CLINIC WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED AREA THAT AT THIS TIME

[10:35] THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY SOLID PLANS ON WHAT THEY

[10:41] WOULD PROPOSE TO DO WITH THE SPACE. I AM NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO IT BEING DEVELOPED BECAUSE YES,

[10:46] THE CURRENT STATUS IS BLIGHT AND SOME MORE HOUSING OR SOMETHING ELSE COMMERCIAL COULD BE NICE.

[10:53] AND AT THE MOMENT NOT SEEING ANY SOLID PLANS, I PERSONALLY AM

[11:03] AGAINST IT AT THIS MOMENT. I DO LIKE MS. CATHY ERICSON'S IDEA OF THE GREEN SPACE.

[11:10] I THINK THAT COULD BE ENTERTAINED AND POSSIBLY INCORPORATED IN WITH ANYTHING A

[11:16] DEVELOPER MAY HAVE. BUT I GUESS THE PRIMARY THRUST TOO OF WHAT I'M UP HERE SPEAKING

[11:23] IS THAT IF THE CITY OR COUNTY IS TO RELINQUISH, VACATE THIS SPACE

[11:31] FOR COMMERCIAL ENTITY FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT NOT KNOWING WHETHER

[11:36] OR NOT THAT MONEY WOULD BE KEPT IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND DOING ANY

[11:41] BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY HERE, IT DOES NOT FEEL RIGHT TO VACATE

[11:48] THAT FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD DO NOTHING TO BENEFIT US. THANK YOU.

[11:53] >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE CATHY ERICSON.

[12:03] >> HI, GOOD EVENING. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COME UP HERE PRIOR TO THIS. I AM THE ONE THAT PROPOSED A

[12:10] GREEN SPACE THERE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE LOVELY. I GREW UP IN THAT AREA, I HAVE BEEN THERE PRETTY MUCH ALL OF MY

[12:16] LIFE. AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THAT PUBLIC SPACE AT WILL. I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF A COMMERCIAL ENTITY WOULD COME IN,

[12:21] USE THAT SPACE, AND THEN HAVE IT BLOCKED FROM ANY KIND OF PUBLIC ACCESS. PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T

[12:28] CROSS, THAT WOULD BE HARD. THAT WOULD BE DEVASTATING. I'VE SEEN OUR NEIGHBORS DOGS BEING TRAINED IN THAT AREA.

[12:35] I'VE SEEN CHILDREN LEARNING TO RIDE THEIR BIKES THERE IF THEY DON'T WANT TO GO AROUND THEIR

[12:40] BLOCK. I'VE SEEN FAMILIES PLAY BALL, CATCH DURING HOLIDAY TIMES. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING JUST TO GIVE IT

[12:48] UP AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ADVANTAGE. SO IF WE COULD KEEP THAT AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING LOVELY TO

[12:55] USE, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO ALL. SO THANK YOU.

[13:01] >> THANK YOU. DID ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?

[13:06] ONE MORE. GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING.

[13:12] I'M WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER. WE ARE LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT SITE ON THIS CORNER.

[13:17] BUT DEVELOPMENT AND UNCERTAINTY IS PROBLEMATIC. SO ONE OF THE ITEMS OF CERTAINTY IS WHAT IS THE SIZE AND THE

[13:22] SHAPE OF THE LOT. SO WE'VE PUT FORWARD, WE ARE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF HEADWINDS ON

[13:28] DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. THOSE HEADWINDS ARE LIGHTENING UP AND WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS

[13:33] PUTTING A PLAN TOGETHER. THE FIRST STEP OF THAT PLAN IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS OUR PROPERTY. SO ESSENTIALLY HALF OF THAT GOES

[13:40] BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE THEN KNOW WHAT OUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE SO WE CAN MOVE

[13:45] FORWARD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT. FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES BASED ON THE SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NOTHING IS

[13:50] GETTING BUILT ON THE AREA THAT'S BEING VACATED ANYWAYS. SO I GUESS WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

[13:57] >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK

[14:04] TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. KIMBERLY, CAN YOU HELP ADDRESS

[14:10] THE QUESTIONS OF THE SECOND TESTIFIER BROUGHT UP. EXPLAIN TO US THE PROCESS FOR

[14:16] VACATING A PROPERTY, WHO IT GOES TO, WHO THE REVENUE GOES TO.

[14:22] >> SO FROM HERE, AGAIN A VACATION IS SOMETHING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WE WORK WITH OUR

[14:28] PUBLIC WORKS TEAM ON. THEY LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS LAND IS NEEDED FOR A PUBLIC

[14:34] PURPOSE, A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY FINDING. THEY HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS NOT

[14:39] NEEDED FOR EITHER OF THOSE PURPOSES. SO FROM HERE, IT WOULD GO TO THE

[14:45] BIZ COMMITTEE, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE FULL CITY COUNCIL, IT'S THEN FORWARDED ON TO

[14:52] HENNEPIN COUNTY AND FROM THERE IT'S LOOKED AT WHO OWNS UNDERLYING FEE TITLE AND THEN

[14:58] IT'S DISTRIBUTED ACCORDINGLY. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A ROLE IN THAT PORTION OF THE PROCESS. >> IS THIS A QUASI JUDICIAL OR

[15:07] QUASI LEGISLATIVE? >> IT IS A LEGISLATIVE ITEM. >> THAT MEANS THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE WANT TO THE COUNCIL.

[15:18] SO FOR THE FINDING, IF IT'S A

[15:24] PUBLIC -- YOU SAID PUBLIC CORRIDOR OR PUBLIC PURPOSE? SO WOULD JUST HAVING A GATHERING

[15:30] SPACE BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE? >> PUBLIC WORKS HAS FOUND THAT IT IS NOT. ALSO THE CITY TYPICALLY DOES NOT

[15:36] ACQUIRE SMALL PORTIONS OF LAND LIKE THIS TO USE FOR PUBLIC

[15:42] PARKS. WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE PARK BOARD WHO I'M SURE CAN SPEAK TO A LOT OF THIS.

[15:48] BUT TYPICALLY IT'S THE PARK BOARD WHO OPERATES THOSE SPACES AND WE DO HAVE OTHER SITUATIONS

[15:55] WHERE IT'S BEEN INVESTIGATED TO TURN BACK EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE USED AS POCKET PARKS.

[16:04] BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN A CONVERSATION HERE. >> OKAY.

[16:11] COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

[16:17] I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WHO WAS JUST UP.

[16:22] MENTIONED THAT YOU MAY NOT EVEN DEVELOP ON THAT SMALL SPACE ANYWAY. AND I WONDERED IF YOU HAD

[16:29] CONSIDERED OR AS THE HEADWINDS START TO EASE UP, HAVE YOU WORKED WITH RESIDENTS IN THE

[16:36] IMMEDIATE AREA TO IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD ON THAT, WHAT IT COULD BE USED FOR OR IF FOR

[16:41] FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THAT PIECE OF LAND COULD BE PART OF A PUBLIC AREA? >> I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC

[16:47] HEARING TO HAVE THAT QUESTION. >> SORRY, THANK YOU. >> YES, COMMISSIONER CONLEY.

[16:54] SO WHAT IT ESSENTIALLY DOES IS IT PUSHES EVERYTHING INWARD. SO IT REDUCES THE OPEN AREA ON

[17:01] THE INWARD OF THE SITE WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP. IT'S AN EXCEPTIONALLY SMALL PIECE OF LAND.

[17:07] I KIND OF WONDER HOW MUCH YOU COULD GATHER BETWEEN A SITE THAT SMALL TUCKED BETWEEN A GARAGE

[17:13] AND A FUTURE BUILDING ON THE BACK END OF AN ALLEY FRANKLY. SO IT WILL BE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE

[17:18] OF THE WAY THE LOT LINE SETBACKS ARE IS WE'RE GOING TO BE NINE FEET OFF OF THAT PROPERTY LINE

[17:24] WHICH FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THAT, WE'RE GOING TO BE BEYOND THAT ANYWAYS. SO IT WOULD BE OPEN SPACE, BUT

[17:30] THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED AS PUBLIC SPACE. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THOSE TWO.

[17:35] WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING PLANTINGS, HAVING SPACE TO PUT TREES ALL OF THOSE THINGS. BUT NOT AS A PLACE TO GATHER.

[17:42] >> COMMISSIONER FORNEY. >> JUST FOR ALL TO BE AWARE,

[17:49] WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT DEPENDING UPON EMPLOYEES OR IF IT'S A LIVING OR IN OTHER WORDS

[17:55] DWELLINGS, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY EITHER A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE OR PART OF THEIR

[18:01] PARCEL WOULD GO TOWARDS POTENTIALLY A PARK. SO JUST FOR YOU TO KNOW,

[18:06] HOPEFULLY IT WILL MEET SOME OF THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. >> DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE

[18:12] QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN? SO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[18:18] ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR MOTIONS FOR THE MAIN MOTION?

[18:26] ALL RIGHT, I'LL SAY I AM PERSONALLY SYMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA OF HAVING GREEN SPACE.

[18:32] I DON'T SEE A MECHANISM FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT TONIGHT SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF

[18:39] AND PUBLIC WORKS. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR WAGNER.

[18:46] I WOULD ECHO THOSE COMMENTS AS WELL. I THINK THAT THE THOUGHT OF BUILDING A SMALL PARK IN THIS

[18:54] LOCATION IS A GOOD ONE, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.

[19:00] UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS COMMENTS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

[19:05] >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CLERK PLEASE CALL

[19:10] THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY.

[19:15] >> AYE. >> FORNEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE.

[19:21] >> JONES IS ABSENT. SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. SHEPPARD.

[19:26] >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER.

[19:31] >> AYE. >> THERE ARE SEVEN AYES. >> THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

[19:39] 4109 AND 4113 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF IS LINDSEY SILAS.

[19:47] IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK, PLEASE GO OVER TO OUR CLERK AND FILL IN YOUR

[19:52] NAME. AFTER -- I'M ONLY GOING TO BE CALLING PEOPLE FROM THE LIST. SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, BE SURE

[19:58] TO SIGN UP FOR IT. GO AHEAD, LINDSEY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEYER,

[20:05] MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU IS 4109 AND 4113 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH.

[20:10] THIS CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS. 4109 SHERIDAN IS VACANT AFTER

[20:16] THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN 2022. 4113 CONTAINS A TWO AND A HALF

[20:23] STORY DUPLEX AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. 4113 HAS A FLAG PORTION THAT

[20:29] CONNECTS SOUTH TO 42nd. AND THERE ARE SOME CONNECTIONS TO EASEMENTS FOR NEIGHBORING

[20:37] PROPERTIES. CORRIDOR THREE RUNS THE LENGTH OF SHERIDAN IN THIS AREA. THIS IS AN INTERESTING SITE.

[20:42] YOU CAN SEE ON THE ZONING MAP WHERE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT CUTS THROUGH THE SITE AT A DIAGONAL.

[20:49] AND THAT MEANS THAT THE SITE IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE

[20:56] SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH IS 1,000 FEET FROM THE PROTECTED

[21:02] WATERS. SO THE REAR OF THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE FRONT OF THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED IN THE

[21:08] SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO DEMOLISH THE A DUPLEX ON THE

[21:14] SOUTHERN LOT AND CONSTRUCT A

[21:21] THREE STORY BUILDING WITH DWELLING UNITS. THEY HAVE PROPOSED THERE WILL BE 26 PARKING SPACES IN A PARTIALLY

[21:27] UNDERGROUND LEVEL. THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED. SO IT'S CUP TO INCREASE THE

[21:32] HEIGHT OF THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO THREE STORIES

[21:40] AND 35 FEET TO 40 FEET SIX INCHES. THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION IS WHAT HAS DRIVEN

[21:46] THIS APPLICATION TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE APPLICATIONS ON THEIR OWN WOULD

[21:52] HAVE BEEN AND ARE ADMINISTRATIVE. SO THE ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS ARE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE NEW

[21:57] 13 UNIT BUILDING. AN ADMINISTRATIVE INCREASE TO THE FAR FROM 1.5 TO 1.71 AND

[22:04] ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE FOR THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING OUTSIDE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY TO INCREASE FROM 3 TO 4 STORIES.

[22:11] SO THOSE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE PORTIONS WHILE THEY ARE LISTED ON THE APPLICATION LIST, THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS

[22:16] THAT STAFF HAS ASSESSED AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING PREMIUMS FOR THOSE SO STAFF IS

[22:21] RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE. SO THOSE ARE NOT IN YOUR PURVIEW TONIGHT. REALLY THE MAIN APPLICATION

[22:27] COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THAT SECTION OF THE

[22:32] BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT FROM 2.5 STORIES TO

[22:38] THREE STORIES. SO HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. THE SITE IS LOCATED JUST A

[22:45] COUPLE BLOCKS TO THE WEST OF LAKE HARRIETT AND JUST A FEW

[22:52] BLOCKS DOWNTOWN OF LINDEN HILLS AREA. A VERY ZOOMED OUT SITE PLAN.

[22:58] I'LL GO THROUGH THE PLANS HERE RATHER QUICKLY. FEEL FREE TO STOP ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THEY HAVE 26 SPACES.

[23:04] SOME OF THOSE SPACES ARE PROVIDED WHICH WE DO COUNT AS PARKING SPACES TOWARDS THEIR

[23:10] MAXIMUM. THERE IS 18 INDIVIDUAL STALLS BUT 26 SPACES TOTAL. THEY'RE PROVIDING BIKE PARKING

[23:15] BOTH WITHIN THE UNDERGROUND GARAGE AND AT GRADE IN A BIKE PARKING ROOM TO COMPLY WITH THE

[23:22] REQUIREMENTS ABOUT NOT HAVING TO ACCESS BIKE PARKING WITH STAIRS OR ELEVATORS.

[23:28] HERE IS THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLAN. AND THEN THE FOURTH FLOOR PLAN

[23:33] IS SHOWN HERE. THERE'S JUST ONE UNIT PROPOSED ON THE FOURTH FLOOR. IT DOES HAVE SETBACKS FROM THREE

[23:41] SIDES ON THE WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST TO LOCATE IT OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.

[23:47] HERE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING.

[23:54] AND A RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

[23:59] SO THE MAIN APPLICATION AT HAND IS THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.

[24:08] AND THEN I JUST KIND OF TO SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS A USE THAT BECAUSE OF

[24:16] UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, BUT THAT MAY BE

[24:21] ALLOWED UPON SHOWING THAT SUCH USE IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION WILL COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS AND

[24:26] STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CONDITIONAL USES MUST BE ALLOWED WHEN THOSE STANDARDS OF THE

[24:32] ZONING ORDINANCE ARE MET AND DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MUST BE BASED ON REAL DOCUMENTED HARMS OF THE USE THAT

[24:38] CANNOT BE MITIGATED THROUGH THE USE OF CONDITIONS. SO REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT INCREASE OF HEIGHT FROM 2.5

[24:44] STORIES TO 3, ARE THERE REAL DOCUMENTED HARMS OF THAT INCREASE THAT ARE CLEARLY ABLE

[24:54] TO BE DEMONSTRATED. SO STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS ABLE TO MEET ALL OF

[25:00] THE FINDINGS BOTH FOR THE STANDARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS AND FOR THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS RELATED TO HEIGHT.

[25:07] THIS BUILDING IS ON THE VERY EDGE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT MEANING THAT IT IS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BOUNDARY OF

[25:17] 1,000 FEET FROM PROTECTED WATER. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A VARIETY OF PHOTOS SHOWING DIFFERENT VIEWS FROM LAKE

[25:23] HARRIET UP TOWARDS THE SITE. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE. LOTS OF MATURE TREES, LOTS OF

[25:29] EXISTING BUILDINGS. AND BECAUSE THIS IS ON THE VERY EDGE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT UP A STEEP HILL FROM

[25:36] THE LAKE, THERE IS GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED VISIBILITY IF ANY FROM THE LAKE. AND SO WE'RE ALSO THINKING ABOUT

[25:44] VISIBILITY OF THE INCREASE, RIGHT? SO IS THE HEIGHT INCREASE GOING

[25:50] FROM TWO AND HALF STORIES TO THREE STORIES, IS THAT WHAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO

[25:56] BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE VISIBLE FROM PROTECTED WATERS COMPARED

[26:01] TO WHAT MAY BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. STAFF FINDS THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET.

[26:09] ALL UTILITIES, TRAFFIC INTERFACE, ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO BE MANAGED THROUGH THE SITE.

[26:16] STAFF DID RECEIVE JUST AN EMAIL TODAY NOTIFYING STAFF AND THE APPLICANT THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO

[26:21] WORK WITH THE MINNIEHAHA CREEK

[26:26] WATER SHED DISTRICT ON EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER THINGS TO ENSURE KIND OF NO IMPACT ON THE WATERS AND THAT

[26:32] HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT. THE FINDINGS RELATED TO HEIGHT

[26:38] ARE ALSO MET. ONE OF THE FINDINGS IN THE

[26:49] INCREASE OF HEIGHT HAS TO DO WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND THERE IS A CALL OUT FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS IN

[26:55] SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THERE IS A SOLAR ENERGY ON THE

[27:00] PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED SOME PRESENTATIONS THAT SHOW THE

[27:06] IMPACT OF A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHOUT ANY HEIGHT INCREASE BOTH

[27:12] ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEN THEIR PROPOSED BUILDING. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAS OVER

[27:18] NINE FOOT SETBACKS ON BOTH SIDES AND BECAUSE THE BUILDING, THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE THE BUILDING

[27:23] EXCEEDS 75% OF THE LOT DEPTH. SO THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A STANDARD BUILDING ON THIS LOT

[27:28] WOULD BE SEVEN FEET. FOR A BUILDING OF THE PROPOSED HEIGHT. BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEPTH OF

[27:34] THE BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET IS REQUIRED ON EACH SIDE. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING

[27:41] NINE FOOT SETBACKS. THEY HAVE MODELED TWO DIFFERENT BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. A BUILDING WITH THE EXACT SAME

[27:48] FOOTPRINT BUILT TO THE HEIGHT MAXIMUMS WITH A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK. AND A BUILDING THAT IS LESS THAN

[27:54] 75% OF THE LOT DEPTH, BUILT TO THE HEIGHT MAXIMUMS WITH A NINE

[27:59] FOOT SETBACK WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR A BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 42 FEET. I CAN GO THROUGH THESE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PAGES.

[28:06] BUT I THINK THESE WERE ALL IN YOUR PACKETS AS WELL. AND STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND

[28:11] ANY SORT OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING THAT REQUIRES A

[28:16] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND AN ADMIN HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE TWO DIFFERENT

[28:22] MODELED BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT BY RIGHT. SO THE PROPOSED BUILDING HERE IS ON THE LEFT. AND THEN THE TWO MODELED

[28:30] BUILDINGS, THERE'S A LITTLE DESCRIPTION ON BOTH ARE ON THE MIDDLE AND THE RIGHT.

[28:35] YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT THERE'S VERY, VERY LITTLE IMPACT SHOWN TO THE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ON

[28:41] THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IN ANY OF THE MODELS. BUT THAT THEY DO NOT DIFFER

[28:47] BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT ANY LAND USE

[28:53] APPLICATIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING. REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE IS

[28:59] POTENTIALLY THAT -- THERE'S A SMALL AMOUNT OF CHANGE.

[29:05] THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE SEE ANY DIFFERENCE. AND STAFF WAS ABLE TO MAKE THE

[29:11] FINDING THAT THERE'S NO MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY RIGHT HERE AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING THAT

[29:19] HAS THOSE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS TO MAKE UP FOR THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

[29:29] I'M GOING THE WRONG WAY. HERE WE GO. SO THERE'S ANOTHER APPLICATION BEFORE YOU, SITE PLAN REVIEW.

[29:35] THERE ARE ONLY TWO REQUESTS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE, ONE IS FOR BUILDING PLACEMENT.

[29:41] THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO SET THE BUILDING BACK A LITTLE

[29:47] FARTHER BACK THAN THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. PART OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH MANAGING VEHICULAR ACCESS AND

[29:53] ACCESS TO THE BUILDING. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING GRANTING ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THAT REQUEST AND THERE IS ONE BLANK

[29:59] WALL ON THE BUILDING AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THAT CONDITION OF A BLANK WALL BE

[30:05] REMOVED IN THE FINAL PLANS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PRESENTATION AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION,

[30:11] I WOULD BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? >> MANY OF THE QUESTIONS WE'VE

[30:17] RECEIVED HAVE TO DO WITH NOTIFICATION. SO WITHIN THE 350 FOOT RADIUS,

[30:22] DO YOU KNOW THAT EVERYONE WAS NOTIFIED BY OCTOBER 13TH? >> YES. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL THE

[30:27] SPREADSHEET THAT IS GENERATED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY. THEY HAVE A LOCATE AND NOTIFY TOOL WHICH OUR CLERKS USE TO

[30:33] SEND OUT THOSE NOTIFICATIONS. I CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THE NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT. WHETHER SOME NOTIFICATIONS GOT

[30:40] LOST IN THE MAIL OR WEREN'T RECEIVED FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER, IT'S CERTAINLY UNFORTUNATE. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT THE FULL LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN

[30:47] 350 FEET WERE SENT NOTIFICATIONS BY THE CITY. AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO.

[30:52] WE CAN SEND THE NOTICES, BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WILL RECEIVE THEM. I WILL SAY JUST GIVEN THE LEVEL

[30:59] OF ENGAGEMENT ON THE PROPERTY, WE SEE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS

[31:06] MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACTIVATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THE PROJECT. HOPEFULLY FOLKS WHO ARE

[31:11] INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE AND SPEAKING ABOUT THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LEARN ABOUT IT. >> IF I MAY ASK ANOTHER ONE,

[31:18] THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THE FOUR-STORY PENTHOUSE PART.

[31:26] THIS IS ANNIVE -- AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST. IT'S GRANTED BASED ON A PREMIUM.

[31:32] BUT THE PREMIUM IS NOT CLEAR TO ME. DO WE KNOW WHAT PROGRAM IS BEING PURSUED? THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE

[31:38] DEVELOPER. >> THEY'RE PURSUING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY PREMIUM WHICH IS TO PROVIDE 50%

[31:44] OF THE BUILDING'S ENERGY AS RENEWABLE. THEY CAN DO THAT THROUGH ON SITE PRODUCTION OF TYPICALLY SOLAR OR

[31:51] THROUGH PURCHASING RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS. >> GREAT, THANK YOU.

[31:58] >> THIS IS ALSO RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE PREMIUM. COULD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT

[32:04] INCREASE BE USED FOR THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES INSTEAD OF THE THREE TO THE FOUR?

[32:10] >> THE SITE ITSELF IS LOCATED IN CORRIDOR THREE BUILT FORUM

[32:16] OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH ALLOWS THREE STORIES BY RIGHT AND FOR A PREMIUM TO GO UP TO THAT FOUR

[32:21] STORIES. SO THAT PORTION, THAT ADMIN HEIGHT INCREASE APPLIES ONLY TO THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING

[32:27] OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES OR 35

[32:34] FEET. SO THE ZONING CODE ALLOWS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT, BUT THE

[32:40] PREMIUM DOESN'T APPLY IN THE SAME WAY. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY.

[32:46] >> THANK YOU, LINDSEY. QUICK METHODOLOGY QUESTION ON THE SOLAR STUDIES. ARE WE EVALUATING THESE SHADOW

[32:54] LENGTH JUST BY VISUALS OR ARE WE GETTING MEASUREMENTS? LIKE HOW ARE YOU COMPARING THEM?

[33:01] >> SO THE APPLICANT HAD PROVIDED LIKE A SMALL WRITTEN SUMMARY SAYING THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE

[33:06] TO MODEL OUT ANY DIFFERENCES. BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR ARCHITECT HERE AS WELL SO

[33:11] THEY CAN PROBABLY SPEAK A LITTLE MORE TO ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL. BUT STAFF WAS EVALUATING THEM BASED ON THE PROVIDED IMAGES

[33:18] FROM THE SHADOW STUDIES WHICH WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT A COUPLE OF TIMES. SO THE STUDIES THAT ARE IN FRONT

[33:23] OF YOU TODAY ARE MORE DETAILED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT STAFF HAD BEEN REQUESTING.

[33:29] >> OKAY. WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY COME UP. THANK YOU. >> LINDSEY, CAN YOU GO OVER WITH

[33:35] ME ONE MORE TIME WHICH THINGS ARE UNDER OUR PURVIEW AND WHICH

[33:40] OTHER ONES WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED? UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE

[33:47] PERMIT, SO THE 2.5 TO 3 STORIES IS UNDER OUR PURVIEW.

[33:53] THE REST IS NOT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE SITE PLAN IS UNDER YOUR

[33:58] PURVIEW IN THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ZONING CODE. IF THERE WERE NO CONDITIONAL USE

[34:04] PERMIT, THE OTHER THREE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME INITIAL

[34:10] CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT A PROJECT THAT COULD BE REVIEWED FULLY ADMINISTRATIVELY,

[34:15] SO THAT WOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED ANY PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S REALLY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT TAKES THIS WHOLE

[34:21] PACKAGE FORWARD IN FRONT OF YOU. SO SITE PLAN REVIEW IS UNDER YOUR PURVIEW IF THERE WERE CONDITIONS YOU WANTED TO ADD.

[34:28] BUT SIMILAR TO OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE ARE KIND

[34:35] OF HIGHER UP ON THE DISCRETIONARY PYRAMID, THERE'S NOT AS MUCH DISCRETION WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION

[34:41] WHEN THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A BUILDING THAT COMPLIES WITH THE BUILT FORM DISTRICT AND THE

[34:47] SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT. >> LOOKING AT WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA, WHICH ONES ARE NOT UNDER OUR PURVIEW?

[34:53] THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FAR INCREASE. >> OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER MEYER, JUST TO

[35:00] THAT POINT, AND ALSO WE'RE HANDING THESE OUT, I SAW NOBODY HAS THEIR -- THE FINDINGS

[35:08] RELATED TO THE SOLAR ARRAY ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ARE TIED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT

[35:14] INCREASE, NOT THE C.U.P. FOR

[35:19] HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. IT IS ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT IS ESSENTIALLY NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING

[35:25] COMMISSION TO MAKE. >> OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR TO THE AUDIENCE. THE SOLAR STUDIES, NONE OF THAT

[35:30] IS UNDER OUR PURVIEW. >> THERE IS A FINDING UNDER THE C.U.P., UNDER THE HEIGHT

[35:35] INCREASE THAT YOU CAN FOR AT LEAST THAT REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING, YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT

[35:41] IN TERMS OF ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACT FROM GOING TO TWO AND A HALF TO THREE ON THAT REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT'S

[35:46] IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. THEY DO HAVE SIMILAR FINDINGS BETWEEN THE ADMIN HEIGHT

[35:52] INCREASE AND THE C.U.P. FOR HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND. BUT THE C.U.P. ITSELF IS REALLY

[35:59] ATTACHED TO THAT REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING. >> OKAY. SO WE'VE APPROVED A LOT OF OTHER

[36:07] SHORELAND ORDINANCE C.U.P.'S

[36:12] BEFORE. IT'S A PRETTY ROUTINE THING FOR US TO DO. CAN YOU GIVE US THAT CONTEXT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WHEN

[36:18] WE'RE EVALUATING THOSE? >> YEAH, WE CAN JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT IS ALLOWED HERE. SO SHERIDAN AVENUE WAS

[36:24] IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE 2040 PLAN AS BEING A PLACE WHERE ADDITIONAL DENSITY COULD BE LOCATED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

[36:30] I ASSUME THAT SOME OF THAT CAME FROM THE FACT THAT HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTE SIX RUNS ON

[36:36] SHERIDAN WHICH NEXT MONTH WILL BECOME THE E LINE BRT SO THERE'S

[36:41] EXCELLENT TRANSIT SERVICE, EXCELLENT ACCESS TO AMENITIES, THE LAKES ARE RIGHT THERE.

[36:47] LINDEN HILLS HAS FANTASTIC COMMERCIAL NEAR HERE. THAT CORRIDOR IS IDENTIFIED AS CORRIDOR THREE. THAT MEANS THREE STORY BUILDINGS

[36:53] ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. BUT WHERE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT EXISTS, THAT DOES

[36:58] REDUCE THE HEIGHT A BIT, THE ALLOWED HEIGHT. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NOT A VARIANCE.

[37:04] SO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IN ORDER TO INCREASE

[37:09] THE HEIGHT MAY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL

[37:15] DIFFICULTY ON THE SITE RESULTING IN THE INCREASED HEIGHT REQUEST. THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THESE

[37:21] LARGER BUILDINGS OUTSIDE OF THE LOW DENSITY AREAS BECAUSE THAT WAS A POLICY DECISION MADE AROUND THE TIME OF THE LAND USE

[37:29] REZONING STUDY THAT THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE THE COMP PLAN HAS IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL DENSITY

[37:34] WHERE IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE LIMITED IN HEIGHT BY THE

[37:40] SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO REALLY YOU'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THE BOX OF WHAT'S ALLOWED

[37:45] THERE. AND THAT WOULD BE A FOUR STORY BUILDING WITH THE PROVISION OF A PREMIUM.

[37:51] AND THEN YOU'RE KIND OF EVALUATING IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY TO

[37:57] MAYBE MEET THOSE GOALS OF THE COMP PLAN ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING CLOSE TO

[38:03] TRANSIT AND NATURAL AMENITIES, THAT SORT OF THING. >> A LOT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ASK US TO

[38:10] DENY ANY VARIANCES. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES IN THIS APPLICATION,

[38:16] IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE ARE NO VARIANCES, THAT IS CORRECT. FOR FOLKS THAT ARE HERE, A VARIANCE IS SOMETHING IN THE

[38:21] ZONING CODE THAT YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY ASKING, A RULE YOU'RE ASKING TO BREAK IN THE ZONING CODE SPECIFICALLY.

[38:27] WHEREAS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ZONING CODE IS SOMETHING THAT MAY BE ALLOWED AS LONG AS YOU'RE

[38:33] ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE AREN'T ADDITIONAL HARMS BY ALLOWING THAT USE. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. THERE'S NO VARIANCE REQUESTED

[38:40] HERE. THE APPLICANT ISN'T REQUESTING TO KIND OF BREAK ANY SORT OF STANDARD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE

[38:46] SET FORTH. THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO ALLOW A USE WHICH IS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, THAT

[38:51] JUST REQUIRES THIS EXTRA REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT

[38:57] CLARIFICATION. AND JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE AS WE TESTIFY, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES. THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE

[39:03] PERMIT. IF THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE OR HARMS THAT YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE CREATED, THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS

[39:11] THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO COMMENT ON, BUT THERE ARE NO VARIANCES. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE

[39:17] PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING?

[39:22] ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, LINDSEY. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT WITH US?

[39:27] WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT TEN

[39:38] MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOSH SEAGULL.

[39:43] FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL OF JLS DESIGN BUILD.

[39:49] I'M HERE WITH THE ARCHITECTS. WE'LL TAKE THIS AS A DUAL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO

[39:54] SPEAK TONIGHT. OUR PROPOSAL FOR 4109, 4113

[40:00] SHERIDAN, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO BRING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR DETAILED AND PROFESSIONAL REVIEW AND THE NEIGHBORS WHO

[40:06] HAVE ENGAGED THOUGHTFULLY THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. WE SHARE A COMMON GOAL TO ENSURE THAT WHAT'S BUILT IN LINDEN

[40:13] HILLS ENHANCES THIS EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD AND REFLECTS ITS LEGACY. THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS YEARS OF

[40:20] CAREFUL DESIGN REFINEMENT TO CREATE THE SMALL SCALE HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THAT STRENGTHENS THE FABRIC OF

[40:27] LINDEN HILLS COMMUNITY. WE FULLY UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE PRIDE RESIDENTS FEEL FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[40:33] WE LIVE AND WORK HERE TOO. THE SAME PRIDE IS WHAT GUIDED EVERY DESIGN DECISION WE MADE.

[40:39] THAT'S WHY OUR BUILDING MATCHING IS INTENTIONALLY SET BACK FROM

[40:45] THE STREET, USES WARM MATERIALS LIKE BRICK AND WOOD, AND IS SCALED TO COMPLEMENT THE RHYTHM

[40:51] OF SHERIDAN AVENUE. WE'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND MADE MULTIPLE REFINEMENTS. I'D LIKE TO BRING IN JOSH TO

[40:57] DISCUSS THE SHADOW AND VISIBILITY STUDIES AND WE WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND

[41:06] CONCLUDE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. IS THERE A WAY TO ACCESS THIS FOR -- >> YES.

[41:12] CAN WE HAVE SOMEONE HELP HIM OUT WITH THAT? >> IF YOU JUST PUT IT ON THERE, THE TECH TEAM CAN PULL IT UP FOR

[41:20] YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE SEEING IT HERE. >> WE CAN SEE IT FINE.

[41:25] >> OKAY, GREAT. I WANTED TO ADDRESS FIRST AND

[41:30] FOREMOST THE 15-FOOT SETBACK ALONG SHERIDAN. AND IT WAS STATED THAT WE

[41:36] SETBACK THE BUILDING EVEN FURTHER FOR DRIVE ACCESS. YES, WE DID THAT, BUT A GOOD PORTION OF THAT BUILDING COULD

[41:43] BE PUSHED FURTHER TO SHERIDAN, BUT TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS

[41:48] OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WE WANTED TO REFLECT THE SETBACKS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES

[41:53] ALONG SHERIDAN AVENUE. SO I WILL POINT JUST REALLY QUICK, IT WAS DESCRIBED AS THE

[41:59] COLUMN ON THE LEFT IS OUR PROPOSED BUILDING. THE COLUMN IN THE MIDDLE IS OUR

[42:05] EXHIBIT 1 WHICH THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT WOULD BE THE SAME.

[42:11] OR THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE PROPOSED WITH A REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT TO 42

[42:17] FEET IN THE FRONT HALF ALONG SHERIDAN AND 35 FEET IN THE REAR

[42:22] WITH SEVEN FOOT YARD SETBACKS. THE EXHIBIT 2 TAKES THAT

[42:29] FOOTPRINT AND SHORTENS IT FOR THE 75% OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF

[42:35] THE LOT WIDTH. SO IN THESE FINDINGS, I THINK

[42:40] MRBAXLEY, YOU EXPRESSED HOW WAS THIS GENERATED?

[42:46] SO WE'RE USING, WE'RE AT THE CONFINES OF THE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE USING. SO WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO US WAS

[42:51] THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT, THE SITE HAS A TON OF TOPOGRAPHY IN

[42:57] THIS AREA. SHERIDAN IS VERY LOW. EVERYTHING COMES UP. SO WHAT REALLY WAS I GUESS THE

[43:04] IMPETUS FOR THE STUDY WAS TRYING TO SEE THE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND OBVIOUSLY THE

[43:10] NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH. IN THESE FINDINGS OF THESE THREE SCENARIOS, I THINK YOU CAN SEE

[43:16] FOR THE MOST PART IN THE ATUMNAL

[43:24] DATES OF MARCH 31ST AND SEPTEMBER 21ST, YOU'RE SEEING A

[43:30] VERY CONSISTENT SHADOW PATTERN. AND THEN WHERE WE GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFECT ON THE

[43:36] PROJECT WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY THE

[43:41] EXTREMES. DECEMBER 21ST WHERE YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE THOSE EARLY MORNING AND LATE SUNSET SHADOWS

[43:50] AFFECTING THAT NORTH PROPERTY.

[44:12] >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD.

[44:18] >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, JOSH, THE EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 ARE WHAT YOU CAN BUILD WITHOUT EVEN VISITING

[44:24] US? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANKS, JOSH.

[44:30] SO JUST ON THE -- WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MEASURED SHADOW LENGTH

[44:37] DIFFERENCES, IT'S REALLY GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED HERE, RIGHT? OKAY, THANKS.

[44:42] >> COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> THIS IS JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF ENCLOSED

[44:48] PARKING. HOW MUCH IS THE ENCLOSED PARKING ADDING TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.

[44:53] I KNOW YOU'RE GETTING A PREMIUM FOR THAT FOR THE FAR. WOULD THE HEIGHT BE LESS WITHOUT

[44:59] THE ENCLOSED PARKING? >> WITHOUT PARKING AT ALL. >> YEAH, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT

[45:06] PARKING LEVEL? >> YOU WOULD BE DROPPING THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT. >> HOW MUCH?

[45:11] >> GIVE ME A SECOND.

[45:28] >> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING THAT UP? >> ROUGHLY FIVE FEET. >> ROUGHLY FIVE FEET.

[45:33] AND GIVEN THAT YOU'RE AT A SCHEMATIC LEVEL DESIGN AND YOU'RE USING EARLY ON PROBABLY

[45:39] SKETCH UP OR SOMETHING TO DESIGN THIS. HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU IN YOUR SLOPES FOR THE PARKING AND THE

[45:46] REPERCUSSIONS OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES AS THE DESIGN CHANGES. SOMETIMES AS THE DESIGN DEVELOPS YOU GET A THICKER SLAB, YOU DROP

[45:53] THE HEIGHT IN ORDER TO GET THE CLEARANCE FOR A VEHICLE? >> GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BASICALLY SETS THE BUILDING.

[46:01] SO THAT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION. WE VETTED THAT IN TERMS OF

[46:07] STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. WHAT OUR PODIUM WOULD BE, THE THICKNESS OF THAT TO GET APPROPRIATE CLEARANCE AND A RAMP

[46:14] DOWN THAT IS NOT EXCESSIVE. SO I THINK THAT AND THEN TO YOUR

[46:23] POINT ON USING SKETCH UP, VERIFYING IN THE DOCUMENT YOU CAN SEE A COUPLE OF KEY PEAK

[46:30] HEIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PARCELS AND THE HOUSES THAT YOU CAN GET PRETTY EASILY OFF OF

[46:35] GOOGLE EARTH. SO SETTING OUR BUILDING RELATIVE TO THOSE PEAKS AND THE ELEVATION

[46:41] ON SHERIDAN AVENUE MAKE ME FEEL VERY CONFIDENT ON THE SHADOW

[46:46] STUDIES THAT I PROVIDED. >> OKAY, THANKS.

[46:52] >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU.

[46:58] SO FAR WE HAVE I BELIEVE 19 PEOPLE WHO ARE SIGNED UP. SO I'M GOING TO BE READING THEM IN ORDER. PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I

[47:04] MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME. AND JUST A REMINDER, YOU HAVE

[47:10] TWO MINUTES AND YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SIGNED UP, PLEASE SIGN UP. I'M ONLY GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE

[47:15] SPEAK WHO SIGNED UP. SO FIRST WE HAVE JEROME RITTER WHO WILL BE FOLLOWED BY SIMON

[47:26] COHEN. JEROME. WELCOME, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.

[47:32] >> I'M JERRY RITTER. I HAVE LIVED AT 4108 SHERIDAN AVENUE FOR 54 YEARS.

[47:38] I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH ZONING AND BUILDING CODES IN

[47:44] MINNEAPOLIS. I'VE DONE OVER 100 PROJECTS IN MINNEAPOLIS INCLUDING SOME OF THE LARGEST BUILDINGS, LARGEST

[47:53] PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN THE CITY.

[47:58] I WAS THE ARCHITECT IN CHARGE. I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS PROPOSAL. I WANT YOU TO KEEP IN MIND THAT

[48:05] THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE PRESENTED TODAY DO NOT -- THERE'S NO

[48:10] DIMENSION FOR THE TOP OF THE BUILDING IF YOU'LL NOTICE THAT.

[48:25] AND ALSO THE THREE STORY BUILDING THE DIMENSIONS DON'T

[48:32] SHOW THE GUARDRAIL AT THE OCCUPIED THIRD ROOF LEVEL.

[48:45] THE DRAWING THAT WAS SHOWN AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION SHOWS NONEXISTENT TREES ON EACH SIDE

[48:51] OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE

[48:56] EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS. A MORE ACCURATE DEPICTION OF

[49:03] THOSE CONDITIONS ARE SHOWN IN THE COMMENT SECTION THAT I PROVIDED TO THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.

[49:13] I'M DEEPLY DISTURBED AS TO HOW THIS TRANSPIRED TO BE APPROVED.

[49:21] MOST IMPORTANTLY, ONCE YOU'VE GRANTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS, THE CITY WILL HAVE SET

[49:28] A PRECEDENT FOR ZONING DISTRICTS -- FOR THESE ZONING

[49:33] DISTRICTS AND ONCE THOSE PRECEDENTS ARE CROSSED, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO RESCIND THEM.

[49:40] WE ASK THAT THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE DENIED. AT A MINIMUM WE ASK THAT THE

[49:46] REQUEST BE TABLED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY

[49:52] THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE ADDRESSED

[49:58] AND RESOLVED. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE SIMON COHEN

[50:04] FOLLOWED BY TIM GUSTIN.

[50:10] >> I'M SIMON OF 4007 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. ON THE DEVELOPER'S WEBSITE, IT

[50:16] STATES THAT THEY TRANSFORM UNDERPERFORMING REAL ESTATE INTO THRIVING PROPERTIES. IS IT THIS COMMISSION'S OPINION

[50:22] THAT THE LINDEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNDERPERFORMING AND NOT THRIVING. DOES THIS MEAN THAT ANY SINGLE

[50:27] FAMILY HOME IS UNDERPERFORMING AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED? ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION IT STATES THE FOLLOWING GOALS FOR

[50:33] MINNEAPOLIS 2040 APPLY TO THE PROPOSAL GOAL THREE, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING.

[50:39] WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THE CURRENT MEDIAN HOME SALE

[50:44] PRICE IN OUR ZIP CODE IS $475,000. IT'S RUMORED THAT EACH CONDO

[50:49] WILL SELL FOR ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS EACH.

[50:54] HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THIS SUPPORTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

[51:00] IN A LETTER TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, THEY WROTE WE SEE IT

[51:06] FOLLOWING DESIGN PRECEDENT IN SHERIDAN HILLS. THE ORIGINAL NAME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS COTTAGE CITY.

[51:12] MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1804, THE

[51:17] PREFINISHED ALUMINUM IS FAR FROM FOLLOWING HISTORIC DESIGN PRECEDENT. IS THIS THE CASE OF A DEVELOPER SAYING ANYTHING TO A

[51:23] NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET APPROVAL. ALSO THEY STATED THEY'RE COMMITTED TO OPEN, TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION THROUGHOUT THE

[51:29] PROCESS. I LIVE 500 FEET FROM THE SITE AND THE FIRST I HEARD OF THIS WAS LAST WEEK FROM A NEIGHBOR.

[51:34] JLS DID NOT HAVE THE COURTESY TO SEND ME A MAILER OR STOP BY TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN

[51:41] OF BEHAVIOR FOR JLS. THEY ALSO PURCHASED THE LOT NEXT DOOR TO ME AND PLAN TO DEMOLISH

[51:47] IT AND BUILD THREE MORE UNITS. THEY HAVE YET TO KNOCK ON MY DOOR OR INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. I AGAIN FOUND OUT FROM A

[51:54] NEIGHBOR. IF JLS CARED ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY, THEY WOULD HAVE INFORMED US AND STARTED A

[51:59] MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE. I URGE YOU NOT TO APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT ANY

[52:06] DEVELOPER CAN BULLDOZE OUR UNDERPERFORMING NEIGHBORHOOD SIMPLY SO THEY CAN MAKE A PROFIT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[52:11] NEXT WE HAVE TIM GUSTIN FOLLOWED BY KATE SCHUYLER.

[52:20] >> THANK YOU, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TIM GUSTIN. MY WIFE KATE AND I LIVE AT 4037

[52:27] SHERIDAN AFTER SOUTH ALONG WITH MY SON AND DAUGHTER WHO ATTEND MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL.

[52:32] I'LL ADMIT I'M A REAL ESTATE LAWYER. I HAVE A FOCUS ON MULTIFAMILY

[52:37] HOUSING. I MAKE A LIVING I THIS SPACE AND I'M NOT AGAINST DENSITY. HOWEVER, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE

[52:44] PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM. IT PRESENTS ALARMING SAFETY RISKS TO OUR COMMUNITY.

[52:51] WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS ALONG A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. THE PROJECT HOWEVER DOES NOT

[52:58] PROMOTE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. INSTEAD IT PROPOSES 26

[53:03] UNDERGROUND PARKING SPOTS. 26 ON TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE ONLY ACCESS TO THESE 26

[53:12] SPACES SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. THERE HAVE BEEN NO TRAFFIC STUDIES, NO SAFETY STUDIES, AND LET'S BE FRANK HERE, WE DON'T

[53:19] NEED ANY. THE IDEA OF ADDING 26 PARKING STUDIES TO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS CRAZY. COULD YOU IMAGINE IF I HAD 13

[53:25] CARS IN MY DRIVEWAY AND MY NEIGHBOR HAD 13 IN THEIRS? ANYONE WHO LIVES ON SHERIDAN

[53:31] KNOWS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS ALREADY GETTING IN AND OUT OF YOUR DRIVEWAY. IT'S A BUSY STREET.

[53:36] FAST MOVING TRAFFIC, NO CROSSWALKS, NO SPEED BUMPS, NO TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

[53:42] PARKING IS ALLOWED ONLY ON ONE SIDE SO CARS WITH MOVE SWIFTLY. BUSES ARE ON THE FLY.

[53:47] SHERIDAN IS USED BY MANY. MOTORISTS, RUNNERS, BIKERS, WALKERS, YOUNG CHILDREN GOING TO

[53:54] THE NEARBY DAYCARE, ELDERLY GOING TO THE NEARBY CHURCH.

[53:59] AND RECENTLY CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO SHERIDAN TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED AND EVEN FASTER BUS

[54:05] TRANSIT. NOW LET'S THROW ANOTHER 26 VEHICLES INTO THE MIX. ALL GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT

[54:10] SAME DRIVEWAY, THAT BELOW GRADE DRIVEWAY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT

[54:16] PROPOSAL TO SAFELY FUNCTION. OF THE 26 PARKING SPACES IT WAS

[54:22] POINTED OUT EARLIER, 16 ARE PART OF A TANDEM. THE PUZZLE PIECES ARE BEING FORCED. IT DOESN'T WORK.

[54:27] THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT IS SIMPLY TOO BIG FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WE CANNOT RISK EVERYONE'S

[54:34] SAFETY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.

[54:39] >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE KATE SCHUYLER

[54:44] FOLLOWED BY LITA ELAMAD.

[54:50] >> MY NAME IS KATE SCHUYLER. I LIVE AT 4027 SHERIDAN AVENUE

[54:55] SOUTH WITH MY HUSBAND TIM AND HIS TWO TEENAGE CHILDREN. I'D LIKE TO ECHO MY HUSBAND'S CONCERN AROUND THE GENERAL

[55:01] SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SPEED OF THE CARS DOWN SHERIDAN

[55:07] ON AN ALREADY BUSY PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE CAR INTERSECTION THAT

[55:12] CARRIES NO SIDEWALK DESPITE ITS PROXIMITY TO DAYCARES.

[55:18] BEYOND MY CONCERNS IS THE PRECEDENT THIS WOULD SET FOR OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THIS

[55:23] BUILDING ARE INCONGRUENT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT

[55:30] EXISTS FOR A REASON. I THINK IT'S A TIME TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THIS PROJECT FITS

[55:36] WITHIN ITS ALLEGED SCOPE AND WILL NOT DIMINISH THE RICH LANDSCAPE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOLDS. I HOPE THE CITY HAS FINISHED

[55:43] THEIR DUE DILIGENCE WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF SCRUTINY. I HOPE THEY NOTICED THE PHOTOS PRESENTED BY JLS AS EVIDENCE

[55:52] THAT THIS DOES NOT DISRUPT THE LANDSCAPE WERE TAKEN IN FULL

[56:00] FOLIAGE MONTHS WHICH WE HAVE TWO MONTHS OF THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THESE PHOTOS OF THE AREA ARE NOT

[56:05] OF THEIR INTENDED DEVELOPMENT AREA. THEY WERE TAKEN ROUGHLY A HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED SITE.

[56:11] UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER EVIDENCE PROVIDED THAT I AM NOT PRIVY TO,

[56:17] THESE PHOTOS ARE INACCURATE AND MISLEADING. PRECEDENCE IS CRITICAL.

[56:23] AND WHILE I AM VERY PRO DENSITY, I BELIEVE IN THOUGHTFUL AND PRACTICAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT

[56:28] ENHANCE AND BRING DIVERSITY TO NEIGHBORHOODS. I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT DOES NEITHER. AT A MINIMUM, THE CITY SHOULD

[56:35] POSTPONE APPROVAL FOR THIS PRECEDENT SETTING PROJECT UNTIL WE CAN BE SURE THAT IT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY AND

[56:41] SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. LITA AND THEN NEXT WILL BE KITTY

[56:50] CHRISTIANSON. >> THANK YOU. LITA. I ACTUALLY DO NOT LIVE NEAR THE SHERIDAN AREA. I LIVE FURTHER AWAY BUT AM

[56:57] CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD SET. I DO HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT I WANT TO ASK

[57:06] THOUGH. AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT WITHIN

[57:11] THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION. WHAT I HEARD STAFF SAY WAS THAT

[57:16] THERE WAS A PIECE THAT BROUGHT THIS FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION, BUT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW

[57:22] WAS STILL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

[57:27] WE'RE CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION EVEN

[57:34] IF IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED OR NOT. AM I INCORRECT IN THAT

[57:42] ASSESSMENT? >> WE DON'T GET INTO BACK AND FORTH. WE DON'T DO QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL CLARIFY THAT AFTER THE HEARING

[57:47] IS OVER. >> OKAY.

[57:54] I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE

[58:00] CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AS THE FOLKS BEFORE ME HAVE NOTED. I'M NOT WHOLLY OPPOSED TO

[58:05] DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS NATURE, I JUST BELIEVE THERE'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THEM. I HAPPEN TO NEAR THE JUNCTURE OF

[58:11] 44th AND FRANCE IN A SINGLE HOME ACROSS FROM A BUILDING ZONED FOR

[58:16] FOUR STORY BUILDINGS. WHILE I DON'T RELISH THE THOUGHT OF A PROJECT TAKING PLACE CLOSE TO MY HOME, I UNDERSTAND THE

[58:22] ZONING FOR IT. IT'S IN CONNECTION WITH A BUSINESS DISTRICT ALLOWING FOR

[58:28] THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC YOU HEAR OTHERS EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT. THE PROPOSED LOCATION ON

[58:34] SHERIDAN HAS NEITHER OF THESE ATTRIBUTES AND THEREFORE I BELIEVE IT IS ZONED TO NOT ALLOW FOR SUCH A PROJECT.

[58:39] MOST IMPORTANTLY HOWEVER, AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER FROM MR. DEVINKY, THIS PROPOSAL DOES

[58:46] NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND THEREFORE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S LAWS.

[58:51] WHILE I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN FAIRLY USED TO OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROWING OUR LAWS TO THE WIND, I REALLY HOPE THAT

[58:59] MINNEAPOLIS DOESN'T FOLLOW SUIT AND THEREFORE I ASK THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE THIS OR AT THE VERY

[59:05] LEAST TABLE THIS DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. KITTY CHRISTIANSON AND THEN NEXT

[59:12] MATT LOCKHART.

[59:19] >> HI. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE.

[59:25] MY NAME IS KITTY CHRISTIANSON. I LIVE AT 4121 LINDEN HILLS

[59:33] BOUL BOULEVARD. AND I'VE LIVED IN THAT HOME FOR 50 YEARS, RAISED MY CHILDREN THERE. I ALSO OWNED THE FIVE PLEX NEXT

[59:42] DOOR TO ME AND ANOTHER FIVE PLEX ON QUEENS AVENUE SOUTH.

[59:47] I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE COMPLIANCE CONDITIONAL USE OR WHATEVER THE TERMINOLOGY IS.

[59:56] SO I'M NOT AGAINST A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. BUT I DO THINK THE GOAL OF 2040

[1:00:02] WAS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THIS PROJECT CERTAINLY DOES

[1:00:08] NOT DO THAT. I'VE BEEN AGING IN MY HOME. I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT HOMES IN

[1:00:15] LINDEN HILLS SO THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND EVERY NEW DEVELOPMENT IS IN

[1:00:21] EXCESS OF $1 MILLION, MORE LIKE 1.5. SO I COULDN'T EVEN SELL MY HOUSE

[1:00:26] AND MOVE INTO THIS BUILDING. I RAISED MY CHILDREN HERE IN THE

[1:00:32] COMMUNITY AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT WHAT WILL BE DISPLACED ARE

[1:00:38] FAMILY HOMES. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT.

[1:00:44] I CHERISH THE HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE COMMUNITY. I CHERISH LAKE HARRIET AND THE

[1:00:50] PURITY OF THE WATER. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT

[1:00:55] OF IMPERVIOUS GROUND THAT WILL BE INCREASED DUE TO THIS

[1:01:04] DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THAT SHERIDAN IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S NOT AS BUSY OF A

[1:01:09] CORRIDOR AS LIKE LAKE STREET OR HENNEPIN BECAUSE OF ITS

[1:01:15] COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROJECT IS PLOPPED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF RESIDENTIAL

[1:01:21] HOUSING. IT'S NOT ON A CORNER. AND IT'S NOT NEAR THE COMMERCIAL

[1:01:27] ZONE. >> THANK YOU. MATT LOCKHART AND THEN NEXT WILL

[1:01:32] BE LETI LINDBERG.

[1:01:38] >> I'M MATT LOCKHART. I LIVE AT 4017 SHERIDAN. THANK YOU FOR THE IMPORTANT WORK

[1:01:43] THAT YOU DO. I'M ALL FOR THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT FITS IN THE

[1:01:50] MEANS OF THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.

[1:01:57] MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TO GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, YOU NEED TO ENSURE THAT

[1:02:02] THERE IS NOT HARM OR THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT INJURIOUS TO THE

[1:02:08] IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ISSUES DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE

[1:02:14] STRUCTURE AND THE SHADOWS CAUSED. I HAVE NOT HEARD NOR DO I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S BEEN ANY

[1:02:20] STUDIES OF SUCH A LARGE IMPERVIOUS STRUCTURE AND THE

[1:02:26] POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE COMMUNITY. NOT JUST THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE

[1:02:31] LAKE BUT THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. WILL IT CAUSE ADDITIONAL

[1:02:37] FLOODING? I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT PARKING

[1:02:42] IS ALREADY AN ISSUE ON SHERIDAN AVENUE AT THAT POINT. NOW, THE UNDERGROUND PARKING FOR

[1:02:50] RESIDENTS CERTAINLY IS NOT ALL OF THE PARKING THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY SUCH A LARGE MULTIUNIT

[1:02:59] STRUCTURE. AND SO PARKING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED OBVIOUSLY. WE HEARD FROM MY NEIGHBOR ABOUT

[1:03:06] THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS WHICH ARE REAL AND WILL ONLY BE INCREASED BY THIS PROJECT.

[1:03:12] NOW, I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY

[1:03:18] SITUATION, AND THE FRACT THAT I CUTS THROUGH THE BUILDING. CAN YOU CUT THE BUILDING IN HALF

[1:03:25] OR DOESN'T THE ENTIRETY OF THE STRUCTURE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY

[1:03:34] SITUATION? SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS. NOW DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STAFF COMMENTS THAT THIS IS

[1:03:41] CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE

[1:03:49] NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY THE

[1:03:55] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR THE VERY LEAST TABLE IT UNTIL REAL CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED.

[1:04:00] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[1:04:07] NEXT WE HAVE LETI LINDBERG AND

[1:04:13] I'M NOT SURE HOW TO READ THAT. MOLLY FALK. >> LETI DECIDED NOT TO SPEAK BUT

[1:04:20] I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE HER TIME, I WAS SITTING NEXT TO HER. I'M LAUREL BRAUN I LIVE AT --

[1:04:27] NOT ON SHERIDAN. I HAVE MANY CONCERNS, BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS ABOUT SAFETY IN THE AREA I HAVEN'T HEARD

[1:04:33] ANYTHING SPOKEN OBJECT THAT SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A PURVIEW FOR YOUR COMMITTEE. BUT AS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID

[1:04:39] THIS IS A CORRIDOR FOR PEOPLE TO WALK, BIKE, AND OTHERWISE TRAVEL TO LAKE HARRIET FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER AREAS.

[1:04:46] AND THE CONGESTION OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, THE SINGLE IN AND OUT

[1:04:52] OF THE PARKING RAMP ET CETERA IS A BIG CONCERN. THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. A LOT OF BIKING AND PEDESTRIANS

[1:05:00] AND CAR TRAFFIC IS ALREADY KIND OF A JUMBLE AND ESPECIALLY AT THAT SPOT. SO YOU DRIVE UP 42nd, YOU'RE

[1:05:05] GOING TO TAKE A LEFT OR A RIGHT, THERE'S TRAFFIC GOING ALL THE TIME. THERE'S PEOPLE TRYING TO WALK. THERE'S BIKERS GOING BY.

[1:05:11] THERE'S OLD PEOPLE MOVING SLOWLY. CHILDREN RUNNING ALL OVER THE PLACE. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT

[1:05:17] SAYS THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE CROSSING OF THOSE STREETS, THE GETTING DOWN TO

[1:05:22] LAKE HARRIET WHICH THAT IS A MAJOR PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GO TO GET DOWN TO LAKE HARRIET FROM

[1:05:28] ANYWHERE ELSE. SO MY MAJOR CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS THE LACK OF ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE

[1:05:35] THAT ARE WALKING, BIKING, TRAVELLING IN THAT AREA WITH A

[1:05:40] DENSELY POPULATED 26 CARS IN TWO LOTS THAT WILL BE ALSO USING

[1:05:48] THAT SAME 42nd AND SHERIDAN AREA. SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[1:05:53] DO WE HAVE MOLLY? OKAY, GREAT. THEN AFTER THAT WILL BE ANDY

[1:06:00] SOMETHING. >> YES, I'M MOLLY FALK. I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 50 SOME YEARS.

[1:06:06] AND AT THIS POINT I'LL PASS BECAUSE MANY OF MY CONCERNS ARE BEING ADDRESSED.

[1:06:13] THANK YOU.

[1:06:24] OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANDY? >> I'M ANDY, I LIVE AT 4530 SHERIDAN. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 16 YEARS.

[1:06:31] I'VE RAISED MY KIDS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR, THERE IS A STOPLIGHT ON 39TH AND

[1:06:36] SHERIDAN. AND A STOPLIGHT ON 43rd. SO THERE'S A FOUR BLOCK CORRIDOR

[1:06:43] WITH NO STOPLIGHTS, NO STOP SIGNS. I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.

[1:06:58] SO CROSSING AT 42nd IS CONSTANT KIDS COMING DOWN. I WAS A STAY AT HOME PARENT, I

[1:07:05] SPENT MY DAYS WALKING AND BIKING MY KIDS TO SCHOOLS AND PARKS. I KNOW HOW BAD IT COULD BE AND I

[1:07:12] HAD TO BE SO CAREFUL WITH MY KIDS ON SHERIDAN. THE BUSES ARE GOING FASTER THAN EVER. THE NEW BUS PLAN, WE WATCH THE

[1:07:19] BUSES GO DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 MILES AN HOUR. WE HAVE PARKING ON CERTAIN DAYS

[1:07:26] WHEN PEOPLE ON A NICE DAY WHEN PEOPLE COME DOWN TO A BAND SHELL, PARKING IS ALREADY UP TO OUR DRIVEWAYS.

[1:07:32] SO YOU HAVE A HARD TIME PULLING OUT, KIDS HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING. ADDING 26 MORE VEHICLES IS NOT A

[1:07:39] GOOD IDEA. THERE'S BEEN NO PLAN FOR MAYBE A STOP SIGN AT 42nd. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

[1:07:44] BECAUSE THEY WANT THIS BUS ROUTE. SO ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE MAKING IT A LOT MORE DANGEROUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[1:07:50] ON TOP OF THAT, MY KIDS, WE MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE LAKES.

[1:07:57] THE SHORELAND OVERLAY IS THERE FOR A REASON. WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE LAKES. THIS BUILDING IS TAKING A

[1:08:04] MASSIVE AMOUNT OF SPACE, HARD SPACE, ALL OF THE DRAINS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE GUTTERS

[1:08:09] FLOW RIGHT INTO THE LAKE. THE POLLUTION THAT WILL COME OFF

[1:08:15] OF THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO EXACERBATE WHAT'S ALREADY

[1:08:20] HAPPENING AROUND THE LAKES IN MINNEAPOLIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[1:08:26] NEXT WE HAVE SADIE STRAUSS.

[1:08:32] AND THEN --

[1:08:41] >> MY NAME IS SADIE STRAUSS, I LIVE TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT. PRIOR TO MOVING TO LINDEN HILLS

[1:08:47] I LIVED IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK AND LONDON. TWO CITIES WHO BALANCE HISTORIC

[1:08:52] NEIGHBORHOODS WITH HIGH DENSITY LIVING. I WANT TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE

[1:08:58] BUILDINGS. I BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING MORE HOUSING, BUT I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE DONE

[1:09:04] CORRECTLY AND CONSIDERATELY. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL, I HAVE TWO CONCERNS, COMMUNITY SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. I HAVE TWO YOUNG KIDS.

[1:09:10] WE WALK AND BIKE TO GET TO LAKE HARRIET ALONG SHERIDAN AVENUE. DURING THIS WALK, I SEE FIRST

[1:09:16] HAND EVERYTHING THAT IS ASKED OF THE STREET, THE DAYCARE GOERS, THE CHURCH GOERS, THE PACKAGE

[1:09:22] AND DELIVERY COMPANIES, THE GUESTS OF NEIGHBORS ALL STRUGGLING TO FIND PARKING ON

[1:09:27] THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH TRAFFIC GOING BY. IT WILL BE ADDING TO THE NEED OF GUEST AND DELIVERY AND REPAIR

[1:09:34] PARKING. THE 26 CARS PULLING OUT UNDERGROUND PARKING WILL HAVE

[1:09:39] DIFFICULTY SEEING MANY WALKERS WHO USE SHERIDAN TO CONNECT WITH THE 42nd TO WALK TO LAKE

[1:09:45] HARRIET. CARS WILL BE BUSY TURNING OUT AND MIGHT NOT SEE BIKERS UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. THERE ARE NO CROSSWALKS IN THE

[1:09:50] AREA OF SHERIDAN AND DUE TO ITS STAGGERED INTERSECTION AT 42nd, STREET PEDESTRIANS ARE OFTEN

[1:09:57] CROSSING AT UNPREDICTABLE SPOTS. THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ALSO HAS A GOAL OF PEDESTRIAN/BIKER

[1:10:03] SAFETY WITH THEIR VISION 0 PLAN. I URGE THE CITY TO NOT APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME UNTIL

[1:10:09] WE ARE ABLE TO DO A PROPER SAFETY CONSULT OF THE INTERSECTION AND IMPACT THIS NEW

[1:10:14] DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ON THE SAFETY AND WALKABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY SECOND CONCERN IS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE

[1:10:19] DEVELOPMENT. TO CREATE THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, TWO NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WERE

[1:10:24] REMOVED AND THE FINISHED DEVELOPMENT WILL BLOCK THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLAR PANELS ALREADY INSTALLED.

[1:10:30] THEY'RE ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THEIR 50% ENERGY TO BE RENEWABLE, BUT THE PLAN TO

[1:10:35] USE THIS IS BY USING OFFSETS WHICH HAVE NO PLAN OF BEING RENEWABLE WITHIN AYEAR.

[1:10:41] INSTEAD THEY SHOULD MATCH THE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING EXPECTATIONS OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS. I AM ASKING THE CITY TO NOT

[1:10:48] APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT UNTIL A MORE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PLAN IS PUT

[1:10:53] FORWARD. I HAVE NOTES BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HAD THREE MINUTES. CAN I TURN THIS ANYWHERE TO BE READ?

[1:10:58] >> YOU CAN TURN IT INTO THE CLERK AND WE'LL ADD IT TO THE PUBLIC RECORD. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE KRISTIN?

[1:11:05] >> CHRISTA. THAT'S MY HANDWRITING. >> I HAVE THE YELLOW COPY WHICH MEANS I'M NOT GETTING AS CLEAR

[1:11:13] OF THE NAMES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> MY NAME IS CHRISTA ANDERS.

[1:11:18] FOR 25 YEARS, MY PARTNER TOM McLEOD AND I HAVE LIVED DIRECT

[1:11:23] LE BEHIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT. WE HAVE INVESTED IN OUR HOME AND

[1:11:29] OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN MINNEAPOLIS. THIS PROJECT WILL CAUSE DEMONSTRABLE HARM TO SURROUNDING

[1:11:35] PROPERTIES. THIS BUILDING WOULD LOOM JUST FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE. A MASSIVE WALL DWARFING OUR 1905

[1:11:44] HOME. WE SPECIFICALLY RENOVATED OUR HOME WITH ARCHITECTS ALLOWING

[1:11:49] WINDOWS THROUGHOUT FOR NATURAL LIGHT AND A BEDROOM DECK OVERLOOKING THE YARD. THIS PROJECT WILL ELIMINATE OUR

[1:11:57] ASSETS OF OUR BACKYARD. WE LOSE ALL PRIVACY. OUR BEDROOM AND BATHROOM DIRECTLY FACE THIS PROPOSED

[1:12:03] WALL. WE'LL LOSE THE NATURAL LIGHT WE DESIGNED OUR HOME TO CAPTURE. OUR PROPERTY VALUE WILL PLUMMET.

[1:12:11] THIS IS TEXTBOOK INJURY TO ADJACENT PROPERTY. ADEQUATE PROTECTION HAS NOT BEEN

[1:12:17] PROVIDED. THE ALLEY BETWEEN OUR HOUSE AND THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY ELEVATED. WE HAVE A LONG RETAINING WALL WE

[1:12:23] SUSPECT WILL COLLAPSE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND THE WEIGHT OF ALL OF THIS. WE ALREADY EXPERIENCE WATER

[1:12:30] INFILTRATION FROM THE LOT INTO OUR BUILDING IN THE BACK. SO WHEN THESE LOTS ARE COVERED

[1:12:37] WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE INSTEAD OF GRASS, WHERE WILL THAT WATER GO?

[1:12:42] IT WILL GO INTO OUR BUILDING. NO STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OR DRAINAGE PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THIS VIOLATES BASIC DUE

[1:12:49] DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS. THIRD, THIS PROCESS IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. SEAGULL IS

[1:12:54] TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAID HE CAREFULLY LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORS, THERE'S BEEN ONE MEETING ON A FRIDAY NIGHT.

[1:13:01] FOURTH, WE QUESTIONED THE LEGAL COMPLIANCE, THIS NEEDS RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL.

[1:13:06] I ANTICIPATE WE'LL BE DISMISSED AB NIMBYS. WE'RE NOT OPPOSING DENSITY.

[1:13:13] WE'VE HAD SEVEN UNITS OF HOUSING IN OUR BACKYARD.

[1:13:19] WE'RE OPPOSING EXCESSIVE DENSITY THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S STANDARDS. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY

[1:13:25] ENFORCE YOUR OWN RULES. REQUIRE A DRAINAGE PLAN,

[1:13:30] ADEQUATE NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT AND SETBACKS.

[1:13:35] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANTHONY ROSS FOLLOWED BY JEFF STEIN.

[1:13:40] ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANTHONY.

[1:13:48] WELCOME. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. I'M ANTHONY ROSS. I'M A RESIDENT OF 4111LINDEN

[1:13:57] HILLS BOULEVARD DIRECTLY EAST OF THE PROJECT. I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

[1:14:02] FOR 38 YEARS. I URGE YOU TO NOT LET THIS PROJECT GO FORWARD.

[1:14:07] I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF BRILLIANT STATEMENTS, I AGREE WITH ALMOST

[1:14:14] ALL OF THEM, ENVIRONMENTALLY, SAFETY, DUE DILIGENCE.

[1:14:19] PRECEDENT OF FOUR-STORY BUILDING GOING IN OUR BEAUTIFUL NEIGH

[1:14:25] NEIGHBORHOOD. I SEE THIS PROJECT, IT WILL BE SEEN IF IT'S BUILT AS A BEHEMOTH

[1:14:30] IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. A BEHEMOTH THAT DWARFS THESE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC HOMES THAT

[1:14:35] SURROUND IT. SO I THINK THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THIS PART OF LINDEN HILLS

[1:14:43] ESPECIALLY WILL BE SEVERELY DEGRADED IF THIS GOES FORWARD. SO PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS

[1:14:49] PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE JEFF STEINLY AND THEN

[1:14:58] TODD WACHIK. >> HELLO, COMMISSIONERS. NICE TO SEE SO MANY NEIGHBORS

[1:15:03] HERE. MY NAME IS JEFF STEINLY AND I LIVE WITH MY WIFE, OUR SIX KIDS, TWO DOGS, AND A CAT AT

[1:15:11] 4106LINDEN HILLS BOULEVARD WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS SITE. LIKE A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS WE

[1:15:17] SUPPORT SMART CONTACT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT THAT IS DIRECTLY IN OUR BACKYARD AND THIS ONE IS

[1:15:23] DIRECTLY IN OUR BACKYARD. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT SMART CONTACT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT.

[1:15:29] IT IS OVERSIZED FOR THE SITE. AT ODDS WITH THE SHORELAND

[1:15:36] DIRECTIVES. YOUR APPROVAL WOULD CREATE A HARMFUL PRECEDENT WELL BEYOND

[1:15:41] THIS BLOCK. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS OR AT A MINIMUM CONTINUE THIS

[1:15:46] DISCUSSION FOR FURTHER STUDY AND SOME GENUINE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AT ITS CORE THE PROJECT'S SCALE

[1:15:53] IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE

[1:15:59] NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED BUILDING MASS RISES TO AN EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF 52 FEET. IT PRESENTS A THREE-STORY WALL

[1:16:05] ON OUR PROPERTY LINE. AND A FOURTH STORY ABOVE THAT. THE MASSING WILL BLOCK AFTERNOON

[1:16:10] WESTERN LIGHT TO OUR HOME AND ERASE ANY MEANINGFUL GREEN BUFFER THAT EXISTS TODAY.

[1:16:16] ON OUR SIDE OF THE PLAN IT SHOWS ONLY A DRAINAGE SOIL, THERE'S NO TREES, NO FENCING. THERE'S NO PLANTINGS.

[1:16:22] THE DEVELOPER SUGGESTS THE BUILDING WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE AND THE STAFF

[1:16:28] RELIED ON THE PHOTO STUDY THAT THEY PRESENTED. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE. IF YOU STAND ON THE RIDGE LINE OF MY HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE THE

[1:16:34] LAKE. THIS BUILDING WILL BE MUCH TALLER THAN MINE, I'D ASK THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW THAT AND

[1:16:41] ACTUALLY GET SOME REAL FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE LAKE FROM THEIR

[1:16:46] BUILDING. THE PURPOSE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE CLAIMS OF NONVISIBILITY

[1:16:52] AND IT ALSO ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. LIKE OTHERS I AGREE THAT THIS

[1:16:59] WOULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL REVERBERATE CITY WIDE. AND I'VE GOT LITTLE CONFIDENCE

[1:17:07] THAT THIS DEVELOPER, BASED ON HOW THEY'VE BEEN AS A NEIGHBOR SO FAR THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SAFELY EXECUTE THIS PLAN.

[1:17:13] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE TODD WACHIK FOLLOWED BY LAURIE BUSHBOMB.

[1:17:25] >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TODD WACHIK. I'VE LIVED IN LINDEN HILLS

[1:17:33] BOULEVARD WITH MY BACKYARD DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. I AM HERE TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE

[1:17:39] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR THIS PROJECT. LINDEN HILLS IS A COMMUNITY

[1:17:44] DEFINED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SMALL MULTIUNIT HOMES AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNING TO

[1:17:52] INSERT FOUR STORY 53 FOOT LUXURY CONDOS INTO THE AREA. THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL

[1:17:57] CORRIDOR. IT IS NOT BUFFERED BY AN ALLEY AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY FAMILY HOMES. THE DEVELOPER ARGUES THAT THIS

[1:18:04] PROJECT ALIGNS WITH THE 2040 PLAN, BUT DENSITY MUST RESPECT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[1:18:10] HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS BELONG AT COMMERCIAL NODES SUCH AS 43rd AND SHERIDAN OR 50TH AND FRANCE.

[1:18:17] NOT CRAMMED BETWEEN BACKYARDS WHERE OUR CHILDREN PLAY. OUR FAMILY RECENTLY COMPLETED A

[1:18:23] COSTLY LANDSCAPING RENOVATION WHILE FOLLOWING MINNEAPOLIS ZONING LAWS. THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT DRASTICALLY

[1:18:29] INFRINGES ON OUR USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OUR PROPERTY AND WILL LIKELY COST US THOUSANDS OF

[1:18:34] DOLLARS TO RENOVATE PORTIONS OF THAT. IT WILL ELIMINATE PRIVACY, EXPOSING OUR FAMILY TO THE UNITS

[1:18:40] OF THIS BUILDING AND REDUCE OUR PROPERTY VALUE.

[1:18:45] THIS IS NOT ABOUT OPPOSING ALL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ABOUT REJECTING A PROJECT THAT IS WILDLY OUT OF SCALE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

[1:18:53] THE DEVELOPER'S APPROACH REFLECTS A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

[1:18:59] THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMUNITY MEETINGS PRIOR TO FILING APPLICATIONS, MINIMAL NOTICE TO

[1:19:04] NEIGHBORS WITH MANY RESIDENTS WITHIN 350 FEET, INCLUDING

[1:19:09] MYSELF, NEVER RECEIVING ANY NOTIFICATION OR COMMUNICATION. NO MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT TO

[1:19:14] ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS OR MODIFY PLANS BASED ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.

[1:19:20] MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD TO FILE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS JUST TO OBTAIN FULL APPLICATION

[1:19:26] DETAILS. SO THIS IS CLEARLY A DEVELOPER EXPLOITING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PROFIT.

[1:19:33] >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LAURIE BUSHBOMB

[1:19:39] FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL ALTMAN.

[1:19:46] >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LAURIE BUSHBOMB. I LIVE AT 4249LINDEN BOULEVARD

[1:19:56] ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY TO ALL OF MY

[1:20:02] CONCERNS. I WILL SAY I AM DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DUE TO ALL OF THE REASONS

[1:20:07] MY NEIGHBORS STATED. IT'S OUT OF SCALE. AND I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT GOAL THREE WHICH WAS THE

[1:20:12] AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING WHEN IN FACT THERE'S NOTHING AFFORDABLE ABOUT THESE

[1:20:18] 13 UNITS. LINDEN HILLS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS QUICKLY BECOMING LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE TO FAMILIES

[1:20:25] AND SENIORS EVERY YEAR. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 25 YEARS AND WE'RE NOT SURE THAT WE CAN

[1:20:32] STAY BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING, BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY TAXES. SO I'M NOT INTERESTED IN A

[1:20:37] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO MAKE THE DEVELOPER MORE MONEY.

[1:20:44] I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS EVERYTHING MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID IT. I TOO JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR

[1:20:51] THAT I BELIEVE IT WAS JOSH SPOKE TO THE YEARS OF CAREFUL PLANNING

[1:20:56] OF THIS -- IF THAT WAS THE CASE, HOW COME I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT AND MY NEIGHBORS DIDN'T HEAR

[1:21:01] ABOUT IT UNTIL LAST WEEK? THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMUNICATION

[1:21:07] OR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS PROJECT AND THAT IS DEEPLY DISTRESSING TO ME. I WOULD ASK YOU TO DENY THIS.

[1:21:13] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE MICHAEL ALTMAN FOLLOWED BY STEVE HIGGINS

[1:21:22] WHITESIDE I THINK. >> HI, MICHAEL ALTMAN. >> CAN YOU STEP UP TO THE

[1:21:28] MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> WRONG MIC. MICHAEL ALTMAN, 4249 LINDEN

[1:21:35] HILLS BOULEVARD. I WANT TO REMIND US THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GOING FROM TWO AND A HALF TO THREE STORIES WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS

[1:21:41] WE'RE ALSO CHANGING THE ROOF LINE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE SHADOW STUDIES AND I THINK IT'S

[1:21:46] IMPORTANT TO CHECK WITH THE SHADOW STUDIES OF POSSIBLE THINGS THAT WERE WITHIN WHAT

[1:21:53] COULD BE BUILT WITHOUT COMING BEFORE YOU WERE DOING A

[1:21:59] RECTANGULAR BOX WHICH OF COURSE ONE DO. ONE COULD MAKE A LITTLE LINE UP AT THE EDGE. BUT REALISTICALLY A HALF STORY

[1:22:05] IS ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE PEAKED TOWARDS THE MIDDLE AND WILL PROVIDE MUCH LESS

[1:22:11] VISIBILITY AND CERTAINLY LESS HOUSING. AND SO THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY

[1:22:17] PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT NOT AS MUCH AS WHEN YOU GO UP TO THREE STORIES AND FILL OUT THAT THIRD

[1:22:22] FLOOR. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO

[1:22:29] HAVE DENSITY, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS ACCOMPLISHES IT. I THINK THIS PUTS A LOT OF CARS

[1:22:35] BY HAVING 13 UNITS WITH 26 CAR SLOTS. AND I JUST DO NOT THINK THAT WE

[1:22:44] SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS PERMIT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. STEVE HIGGINS FOLLOWED BY TOM

[1:22:54] DEVINKY. >> HELLO. WE, STEVE AND CATHERINE HIGGINS

[1:22:59] WHITESIDE LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE. THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR YOUR TIME AND

[1:23:05] EXPERTISE AND TO OUR NEIGHBORS, MANY OF WHOM ARE HERE TONIGHT FOR BANDING TOGETHER TO ADVOCATE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR

[1:23:10] NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED AND THE ZONING

[1:23:15] CHANGES IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE 2040 PLANS TO INCREASE DENSITY. THIS PLAN PROVIDES A

[1:23:20] COMPREHENSIVE VISION TO GUIDE THE CITY'S DECISION MAKING SO THAT THE FUTURE GROWTH OF OUR CITY BENEFITS EVERYONE.

[1:23:25] IT CONSISTS OF 100 POLICIES EACH WITH MULTIPLE ACTION ITEMS TO ACHIEVE 14 BROAD GOALS. I HAVE SUBMITTED IN WRITING A

[1:23:32] LIST OF POLICIES THAT THE CURRENT LIST OF PROPOSALS VIOLATES. SPECIFIC TO OUR PROPERTY

[1:23:38] DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE BUILDING WE REQUEST THAT THE PLAN NOT BE APPROVED AS LONG AS IT DIMINISHES THE OUTPUT OF OUR

[1:23:43] SOLAR PANELS. THE 2040 PLAN INCLUDES ENCOURAGE THE USE AND GENERATION OF

[1:23:50] RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE CITY. ACHIEVE 80% REDUCTION OF

[1:23:55] GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLEAN ENVIRONMENT. ENCOURAGE SOLAR FRIENDLY DESIGNS

[1:24:01] AND PROVISIONS THAT PROTECT SOLAR ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

[1:24:07] THIS IS IMPERATIVE TO INCREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS IS REITERATED IN THE MINNEAPOLIS

[1:24:15] CLIMATE PLAN AS WELL AS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. UNFORTUNATELY, WE AS A COMMUNITY ARE FALLING SHORT OF THE GOAL

[1:24:20] SET BY RESIDENTIAL SOLAR AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DETRACT FROM

[1:24:26] THIS EFFORT. IF THIS PLAN IS APPROVED IT WILL DISCOURAGE FUTURE INVESTMENT

[1:24:33] SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE, SOLAR PANELS CAN BE BLOCKED WITHOUT RECOURSE. WE ARE HERE TO SET A PRECEDENT

[1:24:38] THAT THE CITY'S GOALS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN BY TRANSITIONING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY ARE NOT GREEN WASHING BUT ENFORCEABLE

[1:24:45] COMMITMENTS. I'D MENTION THE 2040 PLAN CONCLUDES WITH THE POLICY NUMBER 100 TO ADVOCATE FOR

[1:24:50] COMMUNITY-BASED NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT. WELL WE ARE ENGAGING, WE ARE SPEAKING AND WE ARE CLEARLY IN

[1:24:56] OPPOSITION TO THIS PLAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. TOM DEVINKY FOLLOWED BY BRIAN

[1:25:06] HUGHES. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION STAFF, SENIOR PLANNER SILAS.

[1:25:12] MY NAME IS TOM DEVINK, I REPRESENT THE LINDEN HILLS

[1:25:18] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMES TO US THIS EVENING WITH A FAIR AMOUNT OF IRONY, RIGHT? IT'S ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR,

[1:25:25] CORRIDOR THREE. WE SEE RAPID BUS TRANSIT COMING ONTO THIS CORRIDOR, BUT IT HAS

[1:25:33] 26 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPOTS. IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY CLIMATE RESILIENCY PREMIUM TO

[1:25:40] ADD A STORY, BUT IT MATERIALLY OBSTRUCTS AN EXISTING SOLAR

[1:25:46] ENERGY STRUCTURE. AND SO IT KIND OF SCREAMS OUT THIS NEEDS MORE TIME.

[1:25:51] AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, WHAT ARE WE HEARING TONIGHT? IT DOESN'T FIT, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T FIT.

[1:25:57] AND WE HEAR THE NEIGHBORS SAYING THE MASSING, THE HUMAN SCALE, THE DRAINAGE, THE SAFETY, THESE

[1:26:03] ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS THAT THE THREE TIERS OF PROTECTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO A CONDITIONAL

[1:26:10] USE PERMIT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH IS A SPECIAL THING. REMEMBER, IF THIS WAS A ONE

[1:26:16] FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY HOUSE, WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE HERE, RIGHT? AND THIS WOULD BE REALLY NO

[1:26:22] BASIS FOR WHAT THIS APPLICANT IS SEEKING UNDER THE LAW. BUT BECAUSE OF THIS DISTINCTION

[1:26:28] IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, WE'RE DEALING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WE

[1:26:33] HAVE THESE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT NEED MORE TIME, MORE CONSIDERATION.

[1:26:39] AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE HERE. THEY'RE TAKING THE IMPERVIOUS

[1:26:46] SURFACE FROM 14,500 FEET TO 4,800 FEET ON A LOT THAT'S ONLY

[1:26:52] 19,000 FEET TOTAL. AND THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE NORT

[1:26:58] NORTHBOUNDRY IS THE CONTRACTOR WILL FIGURE IT OUT WITH THE NEIGHBOR DURING THE BUILD.

[1:27:04] I WANT TO BE OPTIMISTIC. WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE OPTIMISTIC IN LIFE. BUT DO WE REALLY THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN A WAY THAT IS

[1:27:11] THOUGHTFUL AND APPROPRIATE UNDER THE MANY PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CODE HERE? I THINK THIS CALLS OUT FOR THIS

[1:27:16] COMMISSION TONIGHT TO STAND BY THE CODE, SEND THIS BACK NOT TO

[1:27:22] FORMULA, BUT TO TABLE IT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT I WOULD

[1:27:27] SAY HAVE BEEN SO WELL ARTICULATED TONIGHT BY SO MANY. I'VE OVERSTAYED MY TIME.

[1:27:33] BUT I THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR FINAL SPEAKER WILL BE BRIAN HUGHES.

[1:27:41] >> HI, MY NAME IS BRIAN HUGHES. I LIVE WITH MY FAMILY AT 2515

[1:27:47] WEST 40TH STREET WHICH IS ON THE NORTH END OF THE BLOCK WHERE THIS BUILDING WAS. I DIDN'T INTEND TO BE THE LAST

[1:27:52] SPEAKER OR INTEND TO NECESSARILY SPEAK AT ALL. I WANTED TO REITERATE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS MY NEIGHBORS HAVE

[1:27:59] EXPRESSED ALREADY. BUT I THOUGHT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT

[1:28:05] THAT IT'S ENTIRELY OUT OF SCALE AND CHARACTER WITH MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MY BLOCK.

[1:28:14] WITH THE COMMENT ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AS OF THIS AFTERNOON AND I'VE CHECKED MANY TIMES AS

[1:28:20] I'VE WALKED AROUND MY BLOCK, THE QR CODE THAT'S AT THE PROPERTY

[1:28:25] WHICH SHOULD BE THE ENTRY POINT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS PROJECT, AT NO

[1:28:32] POINT HAS THAT QR CODE GOTTEN TO ANY POINT OF INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT THIS PLAN THAT

[1:28:39] HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR QUITE SOME TIME APPARENTLY. I ALSO LIKE NEIGHBORS HAVE FOUND

[1:28:44] OUT VERY RECENTLY ABOUT THE PROJECT. AND THERE'S BEEN A BIG TURN OUT.

[1:28:49] AND I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO STILL DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY

[1:28:57] UNANIMOUS HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS ABOUT IT. AND I REALIZE WE MIGHT BE

[1:29:03] TALKING ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS ARE NOT

[1:29:08] SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THAT, BUT I THINK THERE IS A GENERAL CONSENSUS AND I WOULD SAY

[1:29:15] UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT JUST DOESN'T FIT.

[1:29:20] AND SPECIFICALLY TO ANYTHING

[1:29:29] ADDITIONAL TO WHAT I HAVEN'T HEARD, 26 CARS IN A GARAGE WILL

[1:29:35] CREATE EXHAUST. ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IS DEFINITELY GOING TO AT LEAST ONE

[1:29:41] OF THE NEIGHBORS IS GOING TO DEFINITELY HAVE THAT EXHAUST IN THEIR YARD.

[1:29:47] THAT'S IT. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC

[1:29:52] HEARING, I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF TO COME UP. LINDSEY, IF YOU CAN COME UP.

[1:29:57] WE'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT EMERGE AND

[1:30:03] THEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYONE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THEY THOUGHT OF FOR THE APPLICANT OR

[1:30:09] ANYONE ELSE THEY CAN ASK THEM. AT THIS STAGE, ASK YOU TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE NOW

[1:30:14] BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL PROCEED AFTERWARD. BUT LINDSEY, CAN YOU TELL US

[1:30:20] AGAIN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW TO HELP CLARIFY THINGS FOR ONE OF THE SPEAKERS

[1:30:25] WHO CAME UP. LET ME TAKE A SHOT AT IT AND SEE IF I HAVE THINGS RIGHT.

[1:30:32] SO NORMALLY IF IT WASN'T FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY, THIS WOULD BE UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND

[1:30:38] WE WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN IT AT ALL? >> CORRECT. >> AND MANY ELEMENTS OF THAT ARE

[1:30:46] BY RIGHT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE PURVIEW TO DENY.

[1:30:52] BUT SINCE THE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS BEFORE US, IF WE WANTED TO

[1:30:59] DENY ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE TO SOMETHING OR MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO

[1:31:07] IT, WE COULD DO THAT? SO THERE'S SOME THINGS WE CAN CHANGE ABOUT THE SITE PLAN

[1:31:13] REVIEW, BUT THE THINGS THAT ARE BY RIGHT, WE COULD NOT CHANGE. THEN THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WE'RE

[1:31:19] HERE FOR IS THE 2.5 TO 3 STORY PART FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY

[1:31:26] ORDINANCE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. SO THE CORRIDOR THREE SETS THE STAGE THAT THIS IS A PLACE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR MODERATE

[1:31:32] DENSITY, BUILDINGS OF 3 TO 4 STORIES. SO SITE PLAN REVIEW IS A PROCESS

[1:31:38] TO REVIEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS. SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SITE

[1:31:44] PLAN REVIEW, WE'RE SAYING IS THERE ANYWHERE WHERE THEY'RE NOT MEETING THOSE STANDARDS AND

[1:31:49] THAT'S THOSE PROVISIONS WHERE THEY'VE QUID ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. STAFF HAS ONLY RECOMMENDED

[1:31:54] GRANTING APPROVAL FOR ONE REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE WHICH IS THAT BUILDING PLACEMENT TO ALLOW IT

[1:32:00] TO BE SET BACK A LITTLE FURTHER FROM SHERIDAN THAN OUR STANDARDS REQUIRE. AND THEN WE'VE RECOMMENDED

[1:32:08] COMPLYING WITH THE REST. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS ONE OF THOSE

[1:32:13] REVIEWS WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LESS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT'S A PROPOSAL THAT'S JUST, IT'S AN

[1:32:19] APPLICATION THAT'S REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDING TO

[1:32:25] CONFIRM THAT IT'S COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE AND THEN EVALUATING IF THERE ARE ANY ALTERNATIVES REQUESTED.

[1:32:32] >> CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL AND

[1:32:38] STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT? IF THEIR RAINING WALL WERE TO BE DAMAGED, WHAT WOULD BE THE

[1:32:44] REMEDY FOR THEM? >> I THINK IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE PROPERTY SITUATION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR AND THE DEVELOPER.

[1:32:49] I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD WORK WITH THEM ON THAT AND POSSIBLY KIMBERLY

[1:32:54] CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT AS WELL. STRUCTURALLY LOOKING AT

[1:33:01] SURROUNDING FEATURES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE NOT ON THE SITE IS NOT COMMON AS PART OF A LAND

[1:33:09] USE APPLICATION. >> FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY,

[1:33:16] THE OVERLAY DOESN'T STRICTLY PROHIBIT TALLER BUILDINGS, SOME OF OUR VERY TALLEST BUILDINGS

[1:33:23] WITHIN THE CITY ARE IN THE OVERLAY, LIKE DOWNTOWN OR THE NORTH SIDE OR LOTS OF OTHER

[1:33:29] PLACES. MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT BASICALLY ADDS AN EXTRA LEVEL OF SCRUTINY TO IT.

[1:33:36] BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PRECEDENCE FOR APPROVING A LOT OF BUILDINGS

[1:33:41] WITHIN THE OVERLAY THAT ARE MUCH TALLER THAN THIS. BUT ONE THING THAT DOES SEEM

[1:33:47] PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER IS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

[1:33:53] BUT THAT HASN'T COME UP AT ALL.

[1:33:59] I MEAN PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT IT UP, BUT AS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ANY PURVIEW OVER.

[1:34:08] IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF

[1:34:15] IMPERVIOUS SURFACE? >> SO THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN CORRIDOR THREE IS 75%

[1:34:23] MAXIMUM. AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED 74.4%. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY

[1:34:28] MECHANISM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPLY A STRICTER REQUIREMENT BEYOND WHAT THE ZONING CODE ALREADY HAS FOR THE

[1:34:35] DISTRICT. LIKE I NOTED, THE WATERSHED

[1:34:41] DISTRICT DID CONTACT ME TODAY AND I FORWARDED IT TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE PLANS FOR

[1:34:47] MITIGATING STORMWATER RUNOFF ON THE SITE AND EROSION CONTROL ON THE SITE. SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK OUT AS THEY'RE

[1:34:55] MOVING THROUGH THE PDR AND BUILDING PERMIT STAGE WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. >> OKAY.

[1:35:01] AND THEN A DIFFERENT TESTIFIER ASKED ABOUT SAFETY.

[1:35:08] TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW? IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN FACTOR

[1:35:13] IN? >> ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THE SAFETY ABOUT CARS ENTERING AND EXITING, WAS THAT SPECIFICALLY THE ONE?

[1:35:19] THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET BURIED IN PDR

[1:35:26] COMMENTS. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS IN PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FINAL PLANS WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE

[1:35:32] COMMENTS. ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE LIKE AN

[1:35:39] ALERT SOUND WHEN THE GARAGE DOOR IS OPENING DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE DOOR, PROXIMITY TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

[1:35:45] SO THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PEDESTRIAN ALERT WHEN THE GARAGE DOOR IS OPENING IN THE BUILDING. SO PUBLIC WORKS HAS REVIEWED

[1:35:53] THIS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THEIR STANDARDS LOOKING AT INTERFACE

[1:35:58] WITH THE PUBLIC STREET AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. I WILL NOTE SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT 42nd AND SAFE

[1:36:05] CROSSING AND THAT SORT OF THING, I THINK THERE ARE ROUTES FORWARD THROUGH THE CITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.

[1:36:11] BUT THOSE WOULD BE THINGS THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC WORKS. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE I WAS

[1:36:18] ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND IT. THERE'S A FORMAT TO REQUEST

[1:36:23] INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAS. SO I CAN CERTAINLY IF ANYONE IS

[1:36:30] INTERESTED IN THOSE RESOURCES, FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME AND I'LL FIND THEM FOR YOU. >> YEAH, AND THAT WAS MY LAST

[1:36:36] QUESTION IS DID PUBLIC WORKS SAY ANYTHING ABOUT POTENTIALLY ADDING A CROSSWALK OR YOU KNOW,

[1:36:44] ONE OF THE TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS LIKE A I DON'T KNOW WHAT

[1:36:49] WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THE SITE BUT A PEDESTRIAN ISLAND OR SOMETHING ELSE LIKE THAT TO MAKE

[1:36:54] CROSSING EASIER? >> THERE'S NOTHING FLAGGED IN THE PDR REPORT. SO PDR IS REVIEWED BY I THINK

[1:37:00] THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT THE DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC SYSTEM AND NONE OF THEM HAD FLAGGED ANYTHING LIKE THAT AROUND

[1:37:06] IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO THE SITE. BUT CERTAINLY THOSE THINGS HAPPEN AND I THINK WITH

[1:37:11] COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEY CERTAINLY HAPPEN A LITTLE BIT QUICKER. IF THAT IS A REAL CONCERN ABOUT

[1:37:16] PEOPLE CROSSING ON 42nd AND HAVING SAFE PASSAGE BETWEEN THE SIDES OF THE STREET, CERTAINLY

[1:37:22] WORTH EXPLORING. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE

[1:37:28] THE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU. SO I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE

[1:37:34] WORK WITH THE MINNIEHAHA WATERSHED OR MINNIEHAHA CREEK

[1:37:41] WATERSHED DISTRICT. YOU MENTIONED THE EROSION CONTROL. CAN YOU DESCRIBE OR GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OR OTHER WORK THAT THEY

[1:37:46] MIGHT BE DOING WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR ENVIRONMENT PIECES OF THE PROJECT? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF

[1:37:52] THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE WATERSHED HAS THEIR HANDS IN IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE ON A PROJECT. SHE DID FLAG THAT SHE REVIEWED

[1:37:58] THE STAFF REPORT IN THE ATTACHMENTS AND SAID THAT A LOT OF THE INFORMATION ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE PLANS IS

[1:38:03] COMPLYING WITH THEIR STANDARDS. SO I DO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED SOME STORMWATER

[1:38:10] RETENTION ON SITE. I'M NOT SURE ALL THE EXTENT OF WHAT THE WATERSHED WOULD BE

[1:38:15] LOOKING FOR IN THE FINAL PLANS. >> THANK YOU. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING I HAVE IS REALLY JUST A STATEMENT. AND COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE HEARD

[1:38:22] BEFORE WITH PROJECTS LIKE THIS, WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE US IN

[1:38:30] PREVIOUS MEETINGS WHERE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A PUBLIC WORKS PERSPECTIVE WHERE THERE'S

[1:38:35] INCREASED DENSITY ALONG STRETCHES OF ROAD WHERE THERE ARE NO CROSSWALKS OR WHERE THERE'S A LONG STRETCH BETWEEN

[1:38:40] STOP SIGNS AND RED LIGHTS AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS UP HERE BEFORE ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE TO HAVE A PERSPECTIVE OF

[1:38:47] STREET CALMING AS A PART OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN AND

[1:38:55] HAVE BEEN SINCE WE'VE HAD THE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS HAPPEN WHERE

[1:39:01] FOLKS DO HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AROUND INCREASED DENSITY, BUT ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUST MOVING AROUND SAFELY.

[1:39:10] SO WHETHER IT'S NOTIFYING

[1:39:15] SPEAKING GARAGE DOORS, TO ME IT'S MEDIANS AND LIT CROSSWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT WOULD BE INTERESTING WHAT

[1:39:23] AVENUES FOLKS HAVE. I'M GLAD YOU'RE WILLING TO SHARE THOSE RESOURCES. WHAT AVENUES FOLKS HAVE TO BRING

[1:39:29] TRAFFIC CALMING AND CROSSWALKS AND OTHER SAFETY MECHANISMS TO THE STREET WHERE NEW DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN.

[1:39:35] THANK YOU. >> I SHARE THAT SENTIMENT. IT'S OFTEN FRUSTRATING WHEN WE

[1:39:40] HAVE CONCERNS COME TO US ABOUT TRAFFIC THAT ARE IN THE DOMAIN OF PUBLIC WORKS AND WE CAN'T

[1:39:46] REALLY ADDRESS THEM HERE. I WILL SAY I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA

[1:39:52] OF THE GARAGE ALERTS. IT'S KIND OF A NUISANCE.

[1:39:59] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING? ALL RIGHT.

[1:40:04] I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS.

[1:40:10] COMMENTS, MOTIONS?

[1:40:15] ALL RIGHT. I'LL LEAD US OFF IF NO ONE ELSE WILL. LIKE I SAID, I SYMPATHIZE WITH

[1:40:24] THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. I'M PLEASED TO HEAR PEOPLE

[1:40:29] COMPLAIN ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING. USUALLY WE GET COMPLAINTS IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH.

[1:40:35] SO I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE AND RECOGNIZE THAT THE MORE PARKING THERE IS, THE MORE TRAFFIC THERE IS GOING TO BE.

[1:40:41] AND WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO REDUCE THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC. THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THE 2040 PLAN.

[1:40:49] I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT DOES MEET THE GOALS OF THE 2040 PLAN BECAUSE IT'S ON A TRAFFIC

[1:40:55] CORRIDOR. THAT'S WHY IT'S ZONED AS CORRIDOR THREE. ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THE

[1:41:02] PLAN IS TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE CLOSE TO AMENITIES LIKE THE E LINE OR LIKE LAKE HARRIET.

[1:41:09] AND MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING

[1:41:14] THERE OR TO PROVIDE OTHER SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS LIKE CROSSWALKS OR

[1:41:23] OTHER TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, THOSE AREN'T WITHIN OUR ABILITY TODAY. OUR ONLY THINGS THAT WE'RE ABLE

[1:41:29] TO CONSIDER ARE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE SITE PLAN

[1:41:35] REVIEW. MOST OF THIS PROJECT IS AUTHORIZED BY RIGHT BECAUSE OF

[1:41:41] ITS ZONING AS CORRIDOR THREE.

[1:41:46] THE ONLY THING THAT ISN'T REALLY IS THE 2.5 TO 3 STORY FOR THE

[1:41:53] SHORELAND COMPONENT.

[1:41:59] BUT LIKE I SAID, THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ADDS AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF SCRUTINY, IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT

[1:42:05] TALLER BUILDINGS. WE HAVE A LOT OF MUCH TALLER BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE APPROVED. AND I THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE

[1:42:12] TO GRANT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE

[1:42:23] FOR CORRIDOR THREE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER FORNEY AND THEN BAXLEY. >> I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST

[1:42:28] THIS. THE SHORELAND OVERLAY IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY, VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO ME. IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF

[1:42:35] HEIGHT. IT IS A MATTER OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. IT'S ABOUT BIRD MIGRATION.

[1:42:41] SO THOSE THINGS ARE VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO ME AND SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BASED UPON

[1:42:49] ITS INTRUSION ON THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. THANK YOU. >> JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT. THE ONLY PART OF THE SHORELAND

[1:42:56] OVERLAY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE HEIGHT. THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS NOT.

[1:43:04] OKAY. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I WONDER IF WE MIGHT CONSIDER

[1:43:13] BREAKING THIS UP INTO TWO VOTES, ONE FOR THE SITE PLAN AND ONE FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

[1:43:19] >> KIMBERLY, WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IF THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF THE

[1:43:25] COMMISSION, THAT WOULD BE FINE. PRESUMABLY IF THE CUP FOR HEIGHT WERE DENIED, THE APPLICANT WOULD

[1:43:31] BE MAKING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW

[1:43:36] APPLICATION. I GUESS I CAN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT THOSE COULD BE REVIEWED

[1:43:42] ADMINISTRATIVELY. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S NECESSARILY ANY HARM IN SEPARATING THEM OUT.

[1:43:47] IT MAY CAUSE A BIT OF CONFUSION. >> LET ME EXPLAIN WHY POTE

[1:43:55] POTENTIALLY AGAIN I THINK BY RIGHT THE APPLICANT CAN BUILD THIS BUILDING WITH THE FOOTPRINT

[1:44:02] SHOWN. THE ISSUE IS HEIGHT HERE. AND I THINK WE DON'T GET A LOT

[1:44:07] OF OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT OR HELP SHAPE THIS TRANSITION.

[1:44:13] WE GO FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. WE HAVE THESE STARK CONTRASTS IN

[1:44:18] VOLUME AND HEIGHT THAT ARE IMPOSED BECAUSE OF WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO FOR DENSITY, RIGHT?

[1:44:24] AND I THINK THIS SITE IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING BECAUSE OF THIS SLICE. IT DOES GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY

[1:44:31] TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE, HOW DO WE SHAPE THIS TRANSITION FROM CURRENT STATE TO FUTURE STATE.

[1:44:39] AND I THINK WHILE FIVE FEET DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH, IT

[1:44:45] ACTUALLY I THINK CAN HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT IN TERMS OF SHADOWING AND VOLUMETRIC SHAPING

[1:44:51] OF A PROJECT. I THINK THE SITE PLAN BY RIGHT,

[1:44:59] WE SHOULD APPROVE IT. BUT I THINK THE VOLUME OF THIS BUILDING AND ITS IMPOSITION ON

[1:45:04] ITS NEIGHBORS IS SHAPED BY THE FACT THAT THIS SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT CUTS RIGHT THROUGH.

[1:45:13] TO THE NORTH YOU CAN TAKE TWO PROPERTIES, COMBINE IT, AND BUILD THE BUILDING HEIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT IN THIS CASE WE CAN HAVE A

[1:45:18] CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS TRANSITION. SO I THINK FOR ME BREAKING IT UP

[1:45:23] INTO NOT APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND --

[1:45:31] >> SO YOU WOULD SO YOU'RE PROPOSING TO APPROVE THE SITE

[1:45:37] PLAN REVIEW AND DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? >> CORRECT. >> SO YOU WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT FINDING FOR THAT.

[1:45:45] >> I'M NOT CLEAR AS TO THE LEGAL

[1:45:50] FINDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE. I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THE WORDING ON WHAT STAFF HAS BROUGHT

[1:45:56] FORWARD YET, SO I'D NEED TO HEAR THAT AGAIN.

[1:46:04] WHAT'S ITS GROUNDS? >> THIS WOULD BE ON PAGE THREE. OR MAYBE 3 AND 4.

[1:46:15] >> SO THE STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR PACKET. I THINK LINDSEY ALSO KIND OF

[1:46:22] SUMMED THAT UP ON PAGE 12 OF HER PRESENTATION WHICH TALKS ABOUT

[1:46:27] ESSENTIALLY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWS THE CITY TO REVIEW USES THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT

[1:46:33] PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT BUT MAY BE ALLOWED UPON SHOWING THAT SUCH USE IN A SPECIFIED LOCATION WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS

[1:46:39] AND STANDARDS OF THE ZONING

[1:46:47] ORDINANCE. THE THIRD BULLET POINT HERE IS SOMETHING OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ITERATED THAT DENIAL

[1:46:54] OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MUST BE BASED ON REAL DOCUMENTED HARMS OF THE USE THAT CAN'T BE MITIGATED THROUGH THE IMPOSITION

[1:46:59] OF CONDITIONS. >> SO THE FULLY RESPECT STAFF'S

[1:47:05] OPINION ON THIS. BUT STAFF CAN STATE AN OPINION,

[1:47:12] BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE FACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE OF THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?

[1:47:18] SO I GUESS WE DON'T KNOW -- I

[1:47:24] JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THE PUSHING FORWARD OF THE CONDITIONAL USE HAS DEFINED EXACTLY THE

[1:47:31] REQUIREMENTS TO MEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE. >> SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU WERE

[1:47:37] TO PROPOSE OR MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE SET OF FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT IS A PROPOSED SET OF

[1:47:43] FINDINGS THAT STAFF PUTS TOGETHER -- >> UNDERSTOOD. >> THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD

[1:47:48] NEED TO MAKE AN ALTERNATE SET OF FINDINGS AS PART OF THAT MOTION.

[1:47:56] >> OKAY. >> THIS IS WHY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THE

[1:48:02] DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VARIANCE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FOR A VARIANCE, THE DEFAULT IS WE DON'T ALLOW IT AND IF WE

[1:48:09] DON'T SEE A REASON TO APPROVE IT, WE CAN JUST DENY A VARIANCE. WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE THE

[1:48:16] FINDINGS, BUT IT'S A LOT EASIER TO DO. FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE DEFAULT ASSUMPTION IS THAT

[1:48:22] THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO THIS. WE HAVE TO ACTIVELY FIND A

[1:48:28] STRONG REASON WHY THEY CAN'T.

[1:48:35] SO LOOK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT FINDINGS THAT THE STAFF HAS PROPOSED AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE ONE.

[1:48:41] >> I'LL LET MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WEIGH IN A LITTLE BIT WHILE WE THINK OF WHAT THOSE

[1:48:47] MIGHT BE. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR HARM HERE.

[1:48:52] AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN PERSUADED ENOUGH THAT THERE'S HARM TO DENY THE C.U.P. THAT'S

[1:48:59] WHERE I'M AT. WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PROPOSED IS HARMFUL.

[1:49:06] AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE THAT. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> COMMISSIONER WAGNER, ARE YOU

[1:49:13] TRYING TO SPEAK HERE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER.

[1:49:19] >> APPRECIATE ALL OF THE INPUT FROM EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FROM STAFF, AND IT'S CLEAR THIS

[1:49:26] IS IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. I LIVE IN SOUTHWEST MINNEAPOLIS AND I RUN IN THE AREA AND I RUN

[1:49:32] AROUND LAKE HARRIET ALL THE TIME. SHERIDAN IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE STREET IN THAT IT FEELS LIKE A

[1:49:39] RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. IT FEELS QUIET. BUT I LOOKED UP TRAFFIC COUNTS

[1:49:44] AND IF YOU LIVE ON THE STREET, THERE IS A STEADY STREAM OF TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET. AND I THINK TO THE COMMENTS

[1:49:50] ABOUT TRAFFIC, WE AS A CITY NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE DESIGN THAT STRETCH OF SHERIDAN

[1:49:55] TO BOTH CONTINUE FUNCTIONING AS A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHILE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS A

[1:50:01] THOROUGHFARE FROM THAT SECTION OF THE CITY TO UPTOWN AND TO --

[1:50:07] AND THE VEHICLE COUNTS ON THAT STREET ARE HIGH. SO DO WE NEED TRAFFIC CALMING OR DO WE NEED CROSSWALKS OR DO WE

[1:50:13] NEED TO MAKE CHANGES RELATIVE TO THAT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT

[1:50:18] RESIDENTS SHOULD CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WITH THEIR CITY

[1:50:24] COUNCILOR AND PERHAPS WITH THE DEVELOPER AS THIS PROJECT PROGRESSES. FOR ME, I KIND OF ECHO

[1:50:29] COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S COMMENTS AND COMMISSIONER MEYER'S COMMENTS.

[1:50:35] I'M NOT SURE I SEE HARM HERE IN REGARDS TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM 2.5 TO 3 STORIES.

[1:50:41] I PULLED UP THE ZONING CODE AND I SEE IN THE HEADING OF THE CODE FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE SHORELAND OVERLAY

[1:50:47] DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE NATURAL

[1:50:53] AND ECONOMIC VALUES OF SHORELAND AREAS WITHIN THE CITY. AND THEN IT GOES ON AND ON. WE ARE ON THE VERY END OF THE

[1:50:59] SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT HERE AND GOING FROM 2.5 TO 3 STORIES IN THIS INSTANCE TO ME SEEMS

[1:51:05] FINE, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S CAUSING HARM. IF THIS PROJECT WAS ACROSS THE STREET, IT COULD BE BUILT BY

[1:51:10] RIGHT. IF THIS PROJECT WAS TWO DOORS NORTH, IT COULD BE BUILT BY

[1:51:16] RIGHT. I'M INCLINED TO FOLLOW STAFF FINDINGS ON BOTH THE SITE PLAN AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

[1:51:21] THANK YOU. >> OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> YEAH. I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE THE OPTION

[1:51:26] OF TABLING THIS C.U.P. GIVEN THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY

[1:51:34] INPUT ALSO WAS PERCEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A LACK OF

[1:51:39] ENGAGEMENT REGARDING WHAT THEY WOULD FEEL IS HARM, TRAFFIC ISSUES, SAFETY.

[1:51:45] CONCERNS REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WHETHER THAT'S NOT TRUSTING A PHOTOGRAPH, NOT TRUSTING SHADOW

[1:51:51] STUDIES, THE DEVELOPMENT OF DRAWINGS, I THINK THERE IS A DRAWING INCLUDED BY A RESIDENT,

[1:51:59] THAT WAS AN ELEVATION, MR. RITTER, AN ELEVATION WITH GOOD CONTEXT IN THERE. IT WAS A STREET ELEVATION.

[1:52:05] WE GET A LOT OF FLAT ELEVATIONS, WE GET A LOT OF PERSPECTIVE. WE'RE NOT GETTING THE NECESSARY

[1:52:12] AMOUNT OF DETAIL I FEEL IN THE SHADOW STUDY IN A WALL SECTION AND SOME OF THE DRAWINGS

[1:52:19] PROVIDED. SO I THINK THERE'S BEEN A STRONG REQUEST FOR THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO

[1:52:25] GET INFORMATION REGARDING TABLING THIS. >> AS ALWAYS I WOULD DISCOURAGE

[1:52:30] THAT. I THINK THE APPLICANT'S DESERVE A YES OR NO VOTE.

[1:52:36] THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE ARE ON A TIMELINE. KIMBERLY, CAN YOU REVIEW THAT TIMELINE FOR US?

[1:52:42] HOW MANY DAYS IT WOULD BE BEFORE THEY WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED? >> I AM JUST LOOKING AT THIS

[1:52:49] RIGHT NOW. I NEED TO PULL UP WHAT THE 60 DAY DEADLINE IS ON THIS ONE.

[1:52:55] IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU. SO WE ARE IN A BIT OF A UNIQUE

[1:53:01] SITUATION HERE WHERE IF THIS WERE CONTINUED ONE CYCLE, IT WOULD GO TO THE NOVEMBER 17TH

[1:53:07] PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE TEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD FOR THAT EXPIRES NOVEMBER 27TH.

[1:53:14] JUST THE WAY CALENDARS ARE LOOKING, IT WOULD NOT GET IN

[1:53:19] FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL UNTIL JANUARY. AND MY COMPUTER IS LOADING VERY

[1:53:24] SLOWLY, BUT IF LINDSEY HAS THE END OF THE 120 HANDY, THAT WOULD

[1:53:32] BE HELPFUL. >> THE END OF THE 60 DAY PERIOD IS DECEMBER 5TH. SO PROBABLY EARLY FEBRUARY,

[1:53:40] FEBRUARY 3RD OR SO FOR THE IF WE EXTENDED IT AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS IN THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL.

[1:53:45] >> COUNCIL, WITH AN ELECTION YEAR DOESN'T HAVE A CALENDAR ADOPTED FOR NEXT YEAR. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD

[1:53:52] LOOK LIKE. WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AND MEET THE

[1:54:04] 60/120 UNDER STATE LAW. BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE IDEAL AT THIS POINT. >> YEAH, WITH IT RUNNING INTO

[1:54:10] THE HOLIDAYS -- FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ASKED IT FROM THE

[1:54:16] AUDIENCE, IT COULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT AUTOMATICALLY GETTING ALL APPROVALS IF THAT HAPPENS.

[1:54:23] SO I DIDN'T HEAR A MOTION THERE. WAS THERE ANYMORE DISCUSSION? >> I JUST HAD A FEW POINTS OF

[1:54:31] CLARIFICATION. MAY WE ALSO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? WE CANNOT. >> WE CAN, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET US TO DO THAT BEFORE THE PUBLIC

[1:54:38] HEARING CLOSED. >> MY BAD. ACTUALLY, LINDSEY, JUST TWO POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

[1:54:43] THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS MENTION A 60% REDUCTION IN ENERGY USE, BUT

[1:54:49] I'VE HEARD VERBALLY HEAR 50%, WHICH IS THE NUMBER? >> THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THAT, COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD.

[1:54:55] THE NUMBER IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE 50%. THERE WAS A ZONING CODE TEXT

[1:55:01] AMENDMENT THAT HAPPENED SOMEWHAT RECENTLY AND UNFORTUNATELY OUR TEMPLATE WASN'T UPDATED BUT THE

[1:55:06] NUMBER THEY AGREED TO ON THE APPLICATION IS 50%. >> AND I THINK IT WAS STATED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING

[1:55:12] THAT -- EXPIRE IN A YEAR, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR THAT THAT IS TRUE?

[1:55:19] >> I GUESS IN TERMS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS OR NOT, I DON'T

[1:55:25] KNOW WHICH PATH THEY'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE, BUT ONCE THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR A PREMIUM, THEY

[1:55:31] NEED TO COMPLY WITH THAT PREMIUM FOR THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE. >> THANK YOU, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

[1:55:37] THANKS. >> SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS WE CONSIDER FIRST A MOTION FOR THE

[1:55:44] STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IF THAT FAILS, WE CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE FROM BAXLEY IF YOU

[1:55:50] HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE FINDING TO PROPOSE. IF THAT FAILS, THEN WE'LL

[1:55:55] CONSIDER TABLING. >> I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE AS

[1:56:01] STAFF SUGGESTS THE COMBINED. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM CONLEY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION

[1:56:09] ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY, SO CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[1:56:14] >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> AYE. >> FORNEY. >> NO.

[1:56:20] >> GORDON. >> NO. >> SHEPPARD.

[1:56:26] >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY.

[1:56:32] >> NAY. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE FOUR AYES AND THREE

[1:56:37] NAYS. >> SO THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO

[1:56:43] OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, THE TEXT

[1:56:50] AMENDMENT FOR SIGNAGE STANDARDS. IF EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT HERE TO DISCUSS OUR SIGN ZONING, IF

[1:56:56] YOU CAN PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE AND CARRY CONVERSATIONS OUT THERE.

[1:57:03] SARA, YOU MAY JUST GIVE 30 SECONDS FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I WANT TO NOTE FOR EVERYONE

[1:57:10] WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN END POINT AT 7:30, THAT'S WHEN WE LOSE OUR CAPTIONING. SO WE'VE GOT TO FINISH BY THEN.

[1:57:59] >> I THINK WE'RE READY SARA. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS SARA ROMAN.

[1:58:06] I'M INTRODUCING THIS EVENING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, A CODE AMENDMENT FOR OUR SIDE ORDINANCE.

[1:58:13] OVER A YEAR AGO, STAFF RECEIVED A REQUEST BY OUR POLICYMAKERS TO REVIEW EXISTING SIGN REGULATIONS AND DETERMINE HOW THEY COULD BE

[1:58:20] AMENDED TO INCREASE VIBRANCY, ARTS AND CULTURE, AND SAFETY IN

[1:58:25] DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS. TALL ORDER. WE RECOGNIZE THAT SIGNS ARE ONE PIECE OF A BROADER APPROACH THAT

[1:58:32] IS GOING TO INCREASE VIBRANCY, MAKE MINNEAPOLIS DOWNTOWN A MORE INTERESTING AND LIVELY PLACE TO

[1:58:38] BE, INCREASE THE SENSE OF SAFETY. BUT WITHIN THE SIGN ORDINANCE WORK WE ARE INCLUDING ON

[1:58:45] PREMISES AND OFF PREMISES SIGNS, THOSE ARE SIGNS FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES AS WELL AS BILLBOARDS. AND WE ALSO AS PART OF THIS

[1:58:52] AMENDMENT LOOKED AT HOW SIGN REGULATIONS CAN INCREASE VISIBILITY FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES, PARTICULARLY OUR

[1:58:59] SKYWAY BUSINESSES AND WE LOOKED AT A FOCUS AREA ALONG PORTIONS OF 1st AND HENNEPIN AVENUE AS

[1:59:05] PART OF THIS EFFORT AS WELL. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE AMENDMENT AND IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ARE RELATED TO

[1:59:14] CITY-WIDE REGULATIONS OR FOR LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. SO WE JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT

[1:59:19] REGULATIONS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN, WE ARE PRIMARILY MAKING CHANGES RELATED TO PROCESSES AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR BUSINESSES TO

[1:59:27] NAVIGATE THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE AND THE PROCESSES INVOLVED IN

[1:59:33] THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF REGULATIONS GENERALLY

[1:59:39] SPEAKING ARE TO PREVENT TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND TO CONTROL AESTHETIC QUALITY.

[1:59:44] I INCLUDE THIS IMAGE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AESTHETIC QUALITY IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHO YOU

[1:59:50] ASK. AND SO PARTICULARLY WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT SIGNS, THERE IS NOT ALWAYS CONSENSUS ON WHAT IS THE

[1:59:56] RIGHT AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.

[2:00:03] QUICK LEVEL SETTING ON PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS ARE FOR WHERE SIGNS CAN BE LOCATED, HOW MANY

[2:00:10] CAN BE LOCATED, AND THEY ARE RELATED TO SIGNS FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOCATED ON A PROPERTY.

[2:00:16] OUR OFF PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS ARE WHAT'S KNOWN AS OUR BILLBOARD ORDINANCE. SO THESE ARE SIGNS THAT ARE FOR

[2:00:25] A BUSINESS OR AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS OCCURRING NOT ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED.

[2:00:32] OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF REGULATING BILLBOARDS HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE MID-1990s.

[2:00:38] AT THAT POINT, WE IMPLEMENTED A SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM FOR BILLBOARDS AND THE GOAL OF THAT SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM WAS TO REMOVE

[2:00:45] BILLBOARDS FROM NON-CONFORMING LOCATIONS. THOSE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. WHEN YOU REMOVED A BILLBOARD YOU

[2:00:52] WOULD GET A SIGN CREDIT. THAT SIGN CREDIT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONSTRUCT A BILLBOARD EITHER

[2:00:58] ALONG OUR LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAYS, THOSE ARE OUR HIGHWAYS OR WITHIN PORTIONS OF DOWNTOWN.

[2:01:04] WE ALSO CURRENTLY HAVE A BILLBOARD ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT WHERE SIGN CREDITS ARE NOT REQUIRED. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, CREDITS

[2:01:11] ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. AND SO YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THAT THERE IS A MONOPOLY RELATED TO THE SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM WHERE ONE

[2:01:17] COMPANY HOLDS ALL OF THE SIGN CREDITS IN THE CITY.

[2:01:24] SO I WANT TO NOTE THAT A LOT OF RECENT PLANNING WORK HAS GONE INTO DOWNTOWN GENERALLY WITHIN

[2:01:31] THESE PLANS. SO THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT. THE DOWNTOWN ACTION PLAN AND THE

[2:01:38] VIBRANT DOWNTOWN ACTION STORE FRONTS REPORT. THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND INCREASING THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF SIGNS.

[2:01:43] SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT BUSINESSES WERE ABLE TO ADVERTISE APPROPRIATELY DOWNTOWN

[2:01:49] AND GENERALLY TO LIVEN UP THE SENSE OF DOWNTOWN THROUGH SIGNAGE AS ONE MECHANISM.

[2:01:55] WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE HAS BEEN MANY, MANY HOURS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

[2:02:01] THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. PART OF WHY WE ARE COMING TO YOU OVER A YEAR SINCE THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BY STAFF IS BECAUSE WE

[2:02:06] HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT WORK AROUND SIGNS.

[2:02:13] SO TO MOVE INTO OUR PROPOSED CHANGES, THE FIRST CHANGES THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT ARE ON PREMISES

[2:02:21] SIGN REGULATIONS DOWNTOWN. SO OUR LOCAL BUSINESS SIGNS. REALLY HERE WE'RE JUST LOOKING

[2:02:26] AT ALLOWING MORE SIGNS IN MORE PLACES AND ALLOWING NEW TYPES OF SIGNS. SO WE ARE ALLOWING ON PREMISES

[2:02:33] SIGNS ON NONPRIMARY BUILDING WALLS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ONLY ALLOWED ON PRIMARY BUILDING

[2:02:38] WALLS. SO THOSE ARE BUILDING WALLS THAT FACE A STREET. THIS WOULD ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY TO PROPERTIES,

[2:02:45] PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE HAVE INTERESTING PLATTING OR THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING IS

[2:02:51] NOT CONDUCIVE NECESSARILY TO HAVING SIGNAGE ONLY ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. THIS JUST GIVES EXTRA

[2:02:56] FLEXIBILITY FOR A BUSINESS TO CHOOSE WHERE THOSE SIGNS ARE LOCATED. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO INCREASE TOTAL SIGN AREA ALLOWED.

[2:03:03] SO THAT'S THROUGH A FEW DIFFERENT MECHANISMS. WE HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION FOR NONPRIMARY

[2:03:09] BUILDING WALLS. WE HAVE AN EXTENSION OF THE MINIMUM SIGN AREA GUARANTEE.

[2:03:14] SO CURRENTLY IF YOU ARE A GROUND-FLOOR BUSINESS, YOU ARE GUARANTEED A MINIMUM SIGN AREA.

[2:03:19] EVEN IF YOUR SIGNS ON YOUR BUILDING ALREADY EXCEED THE MINIMUM, YOU COULD INSTALL A SIGN.

[2:03:24] WE ARE EXTENDING THAT MINIMUM SIGN AREA TO SKYWAY BUSINESSES OR SECOND-STORY BUSINESSES. SO AGAIN IF YOU HAVE A SIGN ON A

[2:03:31] BUILDING THAT'S TAKING UP ALL OF YOUR ALLOCATION ALREADY, AND THERE IS A SKYWAY BUSINESS OR A

[2:03:38] SECOND-STORY BUSINESS THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SIGN, WE WOULD ALLOW AN ALLOCATION FOR THAT SPECIFIC SIGN. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING TO EXEMPT

[2:03:45] DIRECTORY SIGNS. SO AN ADDITIONAL WAYFINDING TOOL, THEY MUST BE LOCATED NEAR

[2:03:52] BUILDING ENTRANCES, BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW BUILDINGS WITHOUT HAVING IT COUNTED TOWARDS THEIR TOTAL SIGN AREA TO PUT UP AN

[2:03:59] EXTERIOR DIRECTORY SIGN TELLING PEOPLE ON THE STREET WHAT BUSINESSES ARE LOCATED IN THAT

[2:04:04] STRUCTURE. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE BUILDING SIGN HEIGHT. SO THAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN

[2:04:10] IS MEASURED FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE TOP OF THE SIGN, FROM 48 FEET TO 60 FEET. IT'S NOT A BIG CHANGE, BUT IT

[2:04:17] WOULD ENCOMPASS THE VAST MAJORITY OF VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE SEE. AGAIN JUST MAKING THESE

[2:04:22] PROCESSES EASIER FOR BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN.

[2:04:27] ANOTHER INTERESTING THING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ALLOW A SMALL SCALE COMBINATION OF ON PREMISES AND OFF PREMISES SIGNS.

[2:04:33] SO ANY SIGN IN THE CITY THAT'S AN ON PREMISES SIGN WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM 20% OF

[2:04:41] THEIR SIGN AREA OR SIGN TIME FOR A DYNAMIC SIGN TO BE OFF PREMISES SIGNAGE.

[2:04:50] THAT COULD BE AN AD FOR A NATIONAL RETAILER. BUT IDEALLY IN TALKING WITH SOME

[2:04:55] OF OUR DOWNTOWN STAKEHOLDERS, WE WOULD LOVE THAT THIS PROVISION WOULD BE USED FOR ADVERTISEMENTS

[2:05:01] FOR OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES AS WELL AS ADVERTISEMENTS FOR DISTRICTS THAT ARE CREATED, SO

[2:05:07] ESSENTIALLY BRANDING FOR DIFFERENT DISTRICTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN. THEY COULD ALSO BE USED FOR

[2:05:12] WAYFINDING. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THIS FLEXIBILITY WOULD ALLOW. IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW SHARING OF

[2:05:20] ADVERTISEMENT FOR EVENTS FOR EXAMPLE. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW A

[2:05:26] FEW NEW SIGN TYPES.

[2:05:32] INCREASING OUR ABILITY TO ADD NEW INTERESTING THINGS DOWNTOWN, LIGHT PROJECTIONS IN OUR DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT AREA.

[2:05:38] SO THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S ON YOUR LEFT IS OF A LIGHT PROJECTION THAT'S MAPPED ONTO THE STRUCTURE OF A BUILDING.

[2:05:44] THIS IS GREAT FOR OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO PERMANENTLY INSTALL ANYTHING

[2:05:50] ON THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE. AND WE ARE PROPOSING THIS IN THE

[2:05:57] DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT AREA FIRST. IF IT GOES WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK WITH A PHASE TWO AND PROPOSE IT FOR MORE AREAS OF

[2:06:05] DOWNTOWN. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW PORTABLE SIGNS MORE COMMONLY

[2:06:11] KNOWN AS SANDWICH BOARD OR A-FRAME SIGNS. THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE WALKING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK

[2:06:17] IN THE PEDESTRIAN AREA. WE HAVE A DIAGRAM IN OUR CODE THAT'S RELATED TO THAT. BUT THEY'RE VERY POPULAR WITH

[2:06:23] DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AND THEY'RE K CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT

[2:06:29] FIX TO ALLOW THEM. BUILDING TYPE SIGNS ARE ANOTHER THING WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE

[2:06:35] ALLOWING. FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO START WITH SKYWAY BRIDGES AND IDEALLY IF THAT GOES WELL, IN

[2:06:42] CONVERSATION WITH OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS HOW BUILDING WRAP SIGNS COULD BE USED

[2:06:48] ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY. THESE WOULD DIFFER FROM FOR EXAMPLE A PAINTED WALL SIGN AND

[2:06:53] THAT IS TYPICALLY A FILM THAT'S APPLIED TO THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE.

[2:06:59] SO THERE'S SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE MATERIAL OF A BUILDING. BUT THEY ALSO TYPICALLY COVER

[2:07:05] WINDOWS AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. SO CERTAINLY WE WANT TO HAVE A

[2:07:10] ROBUST CONVERSATION AROUND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR VISIBILITY IN AND OUT OF STRUCTURES AND HOW THAT WOULD EFFECT THE STREET

[2:07:17] SCAPE IN GENERAL. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW

[2:07:23] DYNAMIC SIGNS WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CURRENTLY ANY DYNAMIC SIGN IN DOWNTOWN WOULD NEED TO COME IN

[2:07:29] FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ADDITIONAL PROCESS STEP TYPICALLY MIMICS THE SAME

[2:07:35] REGULATIONS THAT WE REQUIRE IN THE ZONING CODE. WE'RE NOT GENERALLY SEEING ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS PLACED ON

[2:07:41] THOSE SIGNS, IT IS JUST AN

[2:07:47] ADDITIONAL PROCESS STEP THAT IS TAKING ADDITIONAL TIME AND EFFORT OF STAFF AND NOT RESULTING ANY CHANGES BEING REQUIRED OF THESE BUSINESSES.

[2:07:57] WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING CHANGES FOR SK SKYWAY BRIDGES. THIS IS JUST THE PORTION OF THE

[2:08:03] SKYWAY BRIDGE THAT IS CROSSING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT IS THE ONLY PORTION THAT

[2:08:09] THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS ANY CONTROL OVER. THEY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A REALLY NEAT OPPORTUNITY WITHIN DOWNTOWN TO HAVE MORE PUBLIC ART

[2:08:15] AND TEMPORARY SIGNAGE. SO WE DO ALREADY HAVE EXAMPLES

[2:08:21] OF PUBLIC ART IN MINNEAPOLIS BUT THE EXAMPLE ON YOUR SCREEN IS OF ST. PAUL.

[2:08:26] WITH SOME REGULATIONS AROUND TRANSPARENCY, WE WOULD BE ALLOWING TEMPORARY ON PREMISES

[2:08:31] SIGNS FOR NO LONGER THAN 90 DAYS. TEMPORARY ART, PERMANENT ART,

[2:08:37] AND THEN ALSO CARVING OUT A NEW

[2:08:43] ALLOWANCE FOR EVENTS THAT DON'T BLOCK PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT. SO YOU MAY HAVE HEARD PROPOSALS

[2:08:50] FOR MINI GOLF THROUGH THE SKYWAY. THOSE ARE TECHNICALLY NOT ALLOWED, BUT THROUGH THIS

[2:08:55] PROVISION WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH AN EVENT PERMIT. THE CHANGES RELATED TO ON PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS CITY

[2:09:03] WIDE ARE IN GENERAL PROCESS SIMPLIFICATIONS, SO A SIMPLIFICATION OF SIGN PERMIT

[2:09:10] FEES, IT'S CURRENTLY 14 DAYS AFTER AN EVENT THAT REQUIRES TRACKING OF WHEN AN EVENT

[2:09:16] ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE. SO WE'RE JUST SIMPLIFYING THAT

[2:09:21] TO BE A 60 DAY MAXIMUM. THIS IS GREAT FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A SIGN THAT ALREADY COMPLIES WITH

[2:09:27] CODE AND YOU ARE JUST CHANGING THAT SIGN OUT. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE ILLUMINATION OR THE SIZE.

[2:09:32] YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND MAKE THAT CHANGE WITHOUT COMING TO STAFF.

[2:09:38] AND ALSO ALLOWING CONDITIONAL WALL SIGNS THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THAT PROCESS PRIOR REQUIRED A MINIMUM HEIGHT.

[2:09:44] AND NOW THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW ANY PROPERTY THAT BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD SOME ISSUE WITH

[2:09:50] COMPLYING WITH CODE TO COME FORWARD FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ONE PROVISION THAT I WANT TO

[2:09:55] HIGHLIGHT HERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR PAINTED WALL SIGNS FROM REGULATION. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE ON

[2:10:02] YOUR SCREEN, THIS RECORD STORE, THAT MURAL, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER THAT A MURAL.

[2:10:08] BUT THAT ADVERTISEMENT WOULD NOT CURRENTLY BE ALLOWED UNDER OUR ORDINANCE. SO ANY DEPICTION OF WHAT'S GOING

[2:10:15] ON INSIDE THAT BUSINESS IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE SIGN UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW

[2:10:22] MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PAINTED WALL SIGNS. THEY HAVE A REALLY RICH HISTORY

[2:10:29] AND STORIED HISTORY IN THE CITY. WE SEE BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLES OF

[2:10:35] PAINTED WALL SIGNS THROUGHOUT OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE PROVISIONS

[2:10:41] OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT. WE'RE HOPING TO SEE SOME INTERESTING CHANGES THERE AND

[2:10:46] JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU ALL TONIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PROPOSED TEXT

[2:10:53] AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ON PREMISES SIGNS. IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS OR FOR SPECIFIC USES, AGAIN PRIMARILY

[2:11:00] RELATED TO PROCESS OR TO AMENDMENT FIXES. I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE FOR THEM IN

[2:11:07] THE DECK JUST FOR THE INTEREST OF TIME, BECAUSE I KNOW WE WILL

[2:11:12] PROBABLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT. BUT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE PROVISIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU

[2:11:20] ALL. AND THEN OUR CHANGES RELATED TO OFF PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS. SO UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, STAFF IS

[2:11:29] PROPOSING TO RETIRE THE SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM FOR OFF PREMISES SIGNS. THAT WOULD RESULT IN A PAUSE ON

[2:11:35] THE INSTALLATION OR CONVERSION OF BILLBOARDS. SO THERE WOULD BE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, NO NEW

[2:11:40] BILLBOARDS AND NO CONVERSION OF BILLBOARDS FROM STATIC TO DIGITAL.

[2:11:45] WE ALSO INCLUDED A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THAT ANY NEW BILLBOARD THAT IS INSTALLED, SO ONCE THE PAUSE IS COMPLETE, ANY

[2:11:52] NEW BILLBOARD THAT IS INSTALLED WOULD HAVE TO BE LOCATED ON A LOT WITH AN ACTIVE USE.

[2:11:59] SO THAT IS TO DETER SUB PSI --

[2:12:10] SUBSIDIZATION OF STRUCTURES. WE ALSO ENCOURAGED SIGNS FOR

[2:12:15] DOWNTOWN SPORTS EVENTS IN TOWN. SOME OF OUR MOST LOVED MURALS OF OUR SPORTS TEAMS ARE NOT

[2:12:22] CURRENTLY IN CODE. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THOSE TYPES OF SIGNS RELATED TO FESTIVALS AND THE SUCCESS OF OUR SPORTS

[2:12:28] TEAMS TO OCCUR IN DOWNTOWN FOR 90 DAYS MAXIMUM. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF SIGN THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW IS

[2:12:35] THE PHOTO OF DETROIT WITH THAT

[2:12:40] DETROIT LIONS WE'LL CALL IT AN ADVERTISEMENT OR A MURAL.

[2:12:46] WE ARE ALSO INCLUDING IN THE CHANGES TO OFF PREMISES SIGN

[2:12:52] REGULATIONS AN EXEMPTION FOR OFF PREMISES SIGNS FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES.

[2:13:00] SO HOW WILL THIS PAUSE AFFECT PROPERTY OWNERS? PROPERTY OWNERS WITH EXISTING

[2:13:07] PERMITTED BILLBOARDS WOULD STILL RETAIN ALL OF THEIR EXISTING RIGHTS. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO

[2:13:12] MAINTAIN, OPERATE THEIR SIGNS, CHANGE THE SIGNAGE THAT'S LOCATED ON THOSE BILLBOARDS. THEY WOULD JUST NOT BE ALLOWED

[2:13:20] TO SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THAT BILLBOARD OR TO CONVERT IT FROM STATIC TO DIGITAL.

[2:13:26] THE PAUSE WOULD ALSO TEMPORARILY RESTRICT NEW BILLBOARD

[2:13:31] CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN AND SO WE JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A CITY-WIDE CHANGE TO OUR BILLBOARD POLICY.

[2:13:38] PROPERTY OWNERS COULD STILL ALSO RENEGOTIATE OR REBID THEIR BILLBOARD LEASES DURING THIS

[2:13:44] PAUSE. THIS PAUSE IS EXPECTED TO BE

[2:13:50] TIME LIMITED. AND SO I DO WANT TO JUST TAKE

[2:13:56] SOME TIME TO REVIEW WHY STAFF IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PAUSE WHILE WE MOVE INTO A SECOND

[2:14:03] PHASE OF SIGN CODE REGULATIONS CHANGES THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE

[2:14:09] WITHIN APPROXIMATELY A YEAR. SO THE CITY IS TAKING A FEW STEPS DURING THIS INTERIM PAUSE.

[2:14:15] FIRSTLY, THE ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT IS CONDUCTING A CULTURE SCAPE VISIONING

[2:14:22] PROCESS. THEY ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT AREAS WITHIN DOWNTOWN AND REIMAGINING WHAT THOSE AREAS

[2:14:28] COULD BE. SO THIS IS REALLY GROUND BREAKING, INVENTIVE WORK THAT IS OCCURRING. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE

[2:14:34] ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS STAFF THE SPACE TO COMPLETE THAT PROCESS AND TO CREATE AN INTENTIONAL VISION FOR OUR

[2:14:40] DOWNTOWN. ONCE THEY HAVE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND BILLBOARDS FOR DOWNTOWN, WE

[2:14:46] WOD TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT IN OUR SECOND PHASE OF WORK. WE ARE ALSO INTENDING TO MOVE

[2:14:51] FORWARD WITH A LEGISLATIVE ASK THAT WOULD ENABLE THE CITY TO HAVE A REVENUE-GENERATING

[2:14:57] BILLBOARD PROGRAM. SO THIS IS VERY COMMON IN CITIES LIKE DENVER, MIAMI, ATLANTA, SAN

[2:15:04] ANTONIO. THEY EITHER REQUIRE REVENUE SHARING OR THROUGH A PERMIT FEE ARE CREATING A TANGIBLE PUBLIC

[2:15:10] BENEFIT. SO THEY ARE TAKING THAT REVENUE THAT IS CREATED FROM BILLBOARDS AND THEY ARE REINVESTING THAT MONEY INTO THEIR DOWNTOWNS AND

[2:15:17] THEIR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS TO FUND THINGS LIKE PUBLIC ART AND FESTIVALS.

[2:15:22] THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IS VERY INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROGRAM LIKE THAT. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE

[2:15:28] LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THAT OPTION AT THIS POINT. AND SO DURING THIS PAUSE, WE WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD AT THE

[2:15:35] LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THAT ASK AS PART OF A PACKAGE OF REQUESTS RELATED TO DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT.

[2:15:42] WE ARE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A LOT OF THE INPUT THAT WAS

[2:15:48] RECEIVED AROUND BILLBOARDS WAS FROM STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE RELATED TO MEDIA COMPANIES OR

[2:15:54] PROPERTIES THAT ALREADY HAVE BILLBOARDS. AND THERE IS NOT CLEAR CONSENSUS

[2:15:59] AROUND BILLBOARDS AND WHAT A PROGRAM SHOULD LOOK LIKE. AND SO THIS PAUSE WOULD ALSO ALLOW CPED TO TAKE THE TIME TO

[2:16:07] SPEAK WITH DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS TO

[2:16:13] UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CORRECT BALANCE OF BILLBOARDS MOVING FORWARD COULD LOOK LIKE.

[2:16:19] SO THAT DOES CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. CERTAINLY I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS

[2:16:24] BRIEF ENOUGH THAT WE HAD TIME FOR EVERYONE TO SPEAK WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSAL. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT TIMING IS

[2:16:32] FAIRLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS AMENDMENT. WE DO WANT TO GET THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY THE END OF THE YEAR TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE

[2:16:40] AN OFFER IN PLACE. SO STAFF IS ASKING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND

[2:16:46] APPROVAL OF THESE ORDINANCE CHANGES TONIGHT AND MOVE THIS FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN ADOPTION

[2:16:52] PRIOR TO THE END OF THE YEAR. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, SARA. I DO WANT TO NOTE, OUR CAPTIONER

[2:16:59] CAN STAY UNTIL 8:00 P.M. SO WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTENSION. >> WONDERFUL.

[2:17:05] >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU, SARA.

[2:17:10] >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[2:17:16] I HAVE SIX PEOPLE WHO HAVE REGISTERED. IF YOU WANTED TO TESTIFY AND YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THEM, YOU CAN GO TO THE CLERK AND SIGN UP.

[2:17:23] FIRST I HAVE TOM McCARVER THEN ROGER WORM. TOM, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE

[2:17:30] YOURSELF. AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. TOM McCARVER.

[2:17:35] I REPRESENT 700 HENNEPIN,

[2:17:43] HENNEPIN REAL ESTATE PARTNERS AND I'M ALSO WITH BLUE OX MEDIA GROUP. WE OWN 700 HENNEPIN AND ARE

[2:17:50] GOING THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY AND LOOKING AT NEW USES. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND STAFF

[2:17:56] FOR A BIG CHUNK OF WORK HERE. THE SIGN CODE IS A LOT IN ANY CITY. SO THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF GREAT

[2:18:02] WORK. WE JUST GOT THIS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO SO WE'RE TRYING TO DIGEST IT AND WE'RE COKIND OF O

[2:18:08] THE FLY RIGHT NOW TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. THERE ARE TWO BASIC ASKS THAT I WOULD HAVE. ONE IS TO, I GET THERE IS SOME

[2:18:16] NEED TO CONTINUE THIS ON A RELATIVELY QUICK SCALE. IF WE COULD PAUSE THIS FOR ONE

[2:18:22] CYCLE SO WE COULD ACTUALLY TAKE SOME TIME WITH IT AND SAY OKAY, PUT IT MORE THOUGHTFUL, LOOK

[2:18:29] INTO THIS AND HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS REGARDING THAT. THE SECOND IS THERE IS A

[2:18:36] PROVISION IN HERE THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED ABOUT A PAUSE.

[2:18:42] I GET WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THAT. THAT'S A DE FACTO MORATORIUM WITH NO END.

[2:18:47] SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT TO NOT OCCUR, TO LET THE ORDINANCE WORK

[2:18:53] AS IT'S INTENDED. THERE IS NO REASON THAT WE CAN'T CONTINUE HAVING THESE

[2:18:58] DISCUSSIONS FOR ALL OF THE VIBRANT PIECES THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. I WANT TO BE PART OF ALL OF

[2:19:03] THAT. I THINK ALL OF THE SIGN COMPANIES DO. SO THAT WOULD BE OUR TWO BASIC

[2:19:11] ASKS IS CAN WE MOVE THIS FOR ONE MORE CYCLE OR TABLE IT AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BECAUSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT

[2:19:17] CURRENTLY HAVE, WE'RE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THERE'S A FEW OTHERS LIKE THAT, HAVING THAT FLEXIBILITY IS A BIG PART

[2:19:23] OF BUILDING OWNERSHIP IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2:19:28] ROGER WORM AND THEN NEXT WILL BE KEITH PARKER. >> MY NAME IS ROGER WORM, I'M ON

[2:19:35] THE BOARD OF THE SOUTHWEST BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. WE COVER 520 STORE FRONTS SOUTH

[2:19:40] OF LAKE STREET EXCLUDING 50TH AND FRANCE.

[2:19:46] 90% OF OUR BUSINESSES ARE VERY SMALL BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA. I THINK WE REPRESENT WHAT I WOULD CALL THOSE AREAS OF MINNEAPOLIS THAT HAVE A

[2:19:51] MULTITUDE OF SMALL BUSINESSES. ONE OF THE REASONS, I THINK I FEEL LIKE I'M THE TAIL WAGGING

[2:19:57] THE DOG HERE WITH ALL OF THE BIG THINGS THAT SARA HAS INTRODUCED. I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE THAT

[2:20:02] WE'RE LOOKING FOR EXEMPTIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS IN THE CODE IS THAT

[2:20:08] IF I HAVE ROGER'S BIKE SHOP AND IT'S ALREADY PERMITTED, I TAKE IT DOWN AND MAKE IT BILL'S BIKE

[2:20:16] SHOP, IT'S THE SAFETY FACTORS FROM HAVING A LICENSED ERECTOR

[2:20:21] DO IT AND ALL OF THAT, IT'S SORT OF LIKE IT MAKES THE SAME

[2:20:27] LOGICAL SENSE TO EXEMPT THAT. IN OUR AREA WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH, EXCUSE ME, TRYING TO MAKE THIS QUICK.

[2:20:34] FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO RECEIVE 15 FACADE GRANTS FROM THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. AND WE'VE AWARDED OR

[2:20:41] ADMINISTERED OVER 400 AWARDS, 80 OF WHICH WERE SIGNS. SO WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE

[2:20:47] SIGN CODE AND WORKING WITH BUSINESS ON THE SIGN CODES. IN OUR AREA MOST SIGNS COST

[2:20:52] BELOW $2,000. SO BETWEEN THE $200 FOR THE SIGN AND THE $200 TO PROCESS, IT ADDS

[2:20:59] A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES. AND OUT OF THAT, HALF OF THOSE

[2:21:04] WERE NEW ONES. ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS WAS HANDED TO YOU,

[2:21:10] HOPEFULLY IT'S IN YOUR POSSESSION.

[2:21:15] >> I CAN'T SEE FROM HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S ONE WE HAVE. YES. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2:21:21] KEITH PARKER. AND THEN DANA FRANK WOULD BE

[2:21:30] NEXT. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSION MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KEITH PARKER.

[2:21:37] I'M THE HEAD OF OPERATIONS FOR THE WALKER ARTS CENTER. WE ARE IN THE CONCEPT PHASE AND

[2:21:43] HOPING TO PUT SOME DIGITAL SIGNAGE ON OUR PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION OF THAT

[2:21:48] WOULD BE OF COURSE TO ADVERTISE THE WALKER ARTS CENTER'S PROGRAMMING. BUT WE HAVE MANY CORPORATE

[2:21:55] SPONSORS AND SUPPORTERS. WE WORK VERY COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE ARTS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. SO WE WOULD ENVISION THAT THIS

[2:22:02] SIGNAGE WOULD ALSO DO SOME ADVERTISING AND PROMOTING OF SOME OF THOSE OTHER

[2:22:07] ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE NORTH -- WHO WE PARTNER WITH. I THINK IN YOUR PACKET, YOU SEE THAT WE STARTED TO PROACTIVELY

[2:22:13] DO SOME INITIAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AS WE'RE IN THIS CONCEPT PHASE. WE RECOGNIZE IT AS JUST A

[2:22:20] CONCEPT. BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY, WE'VE REALLY MADE AN EFFORT TO START COMMUNICATING

[2:22:25] WITH OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TALK ABOUT OUR INTENTION AND SO YOU

[2:22:30] PROBABLY HAVE SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT THERE FROM THE BASILICA

[2:22:35] AND DUNWIDDIE. WE'VE ALSO BEEN TALKING TO THE LOWERING PARK NEIGHBORHOOD

[2:22:41] ASSOCIATION AND FRIENDS OF LOWERING PARK. BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU SEE SOME COMMENTS FROM 510 GROVEN WHICH

[2:22:47] IS ONE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF HENNEPIN AVENUE.

[2:22:53] SO OUR GOAL IS JUST TO HOPEFULLY MOVE FORWARD. WE WANT TO REALLY THANK

[2:22:58] COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN AND HER STAFF FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE TO HELP US KIND OF

[2:23:05] SHEPARD THROUGH THIS CONCEPT AND UNDERSTAND THE CITY ORDINANCE AND THE STEPS WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE. SO JUST WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS

[2:23:11] FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND GIVE YOU SOME SENSE OF WHAT OUR INTENTION WOULD BE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2:23:17] >> WE HAVE DANA FRANK AND THEN KELSEY SHARP.

[2:23:22] >> HI. MY NAME IS DANA FRANK. I'M THE OPERATOR 1st AVENUE AT

[2:23:27] THE CORNER OF 7th AND 1st AVENUE WITH THE GIANT BILLBOARDS ON THE ROOF.

[2:23:32] I ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY AT THE FINE LINE BUILDING AND 1st AVENUE BETWEEN 3rd AND 4th STREET. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH

[2:23:39] FOR THIS AMAZING OVERHAUL THAT I KNOW I WAS ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED AND THE

[2:23:44] AMOUNT OF INTERVIEWS AND PROCESS THAT WENT INTO THIS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPRESSIVE. I WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO

[2:23:57] 360, 320 WHICH I HEARD AS A PAUSE BUT IT'S REALLY A MORATORIUM. IT STATES ANYONE WITH EXISTING BILLBOARDS CANNOT CONVERT FROM

[2:24:03] STATIC TO DIGITAL OR CAN'T ALTER. AND UNDERSTANDING THAT INTENDED AS A PAUSE IS VERY DIFFERENT

[2:24:09] FROM HOW IT'S WRITTEN AND RELYING ON A FUTURE COUNCIL, A FUTURE MAYOR AND A FUTURE

[2:24:15] LEGISLATURE TO PASS SOMETHING IN ORDER TO CHANGE THIS IS A GENUINELY TERRIFYING SITUATION

[2:24:21] FOR ANYONE WITH EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO BE IN. AND HONESTLY, I FIND IT COMPLETELY UNTENABLE.

[2:24:26] AS WE GO THROUGH A 1st AVENUE REDESIGN PROCESS, AS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE TARGET CENTER, THE WHOLE

[2:24:32] ENTIRE DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPE COULD CHANGE AROUND US, AND WE MIGHT HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH EXISTING

[2:24:38] SIGNS. AND SO, UNDERSTANDING THE INTENTION IS MAYBE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I READ. AND AGAIN, WE ONLY SAW THIS ON

[2:24:45] FRIDAY SO IT'S BEEN A VERY BUSY WEEKEND TRYING TO DIGEST THIS AND UNDERSTAND THIS FOR WHAT

[2:24:50] SOME OF US HONESTLY KEEPS US IN BUSINESS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT

[2:24:57] TO OPERATIONS. I WOULD REQUEST AN AMENDMENT STRIKING THE MORATORIUM TO ALLOW US TO ADJUST OUR BUSINESS BASED

[2:25:02] ON ECONOMIC AND MARKET CONDITIONS JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BUSINESS CAN DO AND NOT HAND

[2:25:07] STRING US AND CAUSE US TO FALL BEHIND AS THE REST OF THE WORLD IS CHANGING AROUND US. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[2:25:14] >> THANK YOU. KELSEY SHARP AND THEN TOBY

[2:25:25] BROOM. >> MY NAME IS KELSEY SHARP. I LIVE IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. I RUN A SIGN SHOP IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.

[2:25:31] AND WE ALSO HAVE AN OFFICE IN DOWNTOWN. I'M EXCITED ABOUT THESE PROPOSED

[2:25:36] UPDATES. I FEEL LIKE THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS IT FEELS LIKE RED

[2:25:44] LINING THESE VERY IMPORTANT CHANGES OR RED LINING OR GERRYMANDERING THESE IMPORTANT

[2:25:49] CHANGES INTO ONE DISTRICT THAT THE CURRENT POLICYMAKERS WANT TO INVEST IN WHEN THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER CULTURAL CORRIDORS THAT I

[2:25:55] FEEL LIKE ALSO WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT FROM THESE CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCES.

[2:26:00] AND THEN SO BESIDES DOWNTOWN, SO THE FACT THAT WALKER ARTS CENTER

[2:26:06] WOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE PROPOSED ZONE FOR THESE CHANGES IS CRAZY BECAUSE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THAT'S A CULTURAL ZONE.

[2:26:13] A LOT OF THE NEW VIBRANT STORE FRONTS THAT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS DESIGNATED WOULDN'T EVEN BE BENEFITTING

[2:26:19] FROM THESE CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCES. I'M FOR ALL OF THESE CHANGES, I WOULD JUST LOVE TO SEE A LIST OF

[2:26:24] THE OTHER CULTURAL CORRIDORS THAT THEY WOULD EXPAND IT TO AND A TIMELINE FOR WHEN THAT WOULD

[2:26:30] HAPPEN BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THOSE ARE THE BUSINESSES THAT I SERVE. I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT

[2:26:37] THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BILLBOARDS AND A LOT OF THE WORK THAT I DO IS TRADITIONAL SIGN WORK.

[2:26:42] SO I'D BE CURIOUS WHERE THE CITY WOULD LAND ON HAND PAINTED ADVERTISEMENTS LIKE IN NEW YORK

[2:26:48] AND L.A., YOU SEE A LOT OF HAND-PAINTED SIGNS ON THE SIDES

[2:26:54] OF BUILDINGS. SO THE ADS FOR iPHONE OR WHATEVER, MAKEUP BRAND, YOU SEE

[2:27:00] THOSE TYPE OF HAND-PAINTED ADVERTISEMENTS. SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF BILLBOARD BE CONSIDERED

[2:27:06] AND ADDRESSED AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2:27:16] TOBY BRILL AND THEN RAND LEVY.

[2:27:25] >> HELLO, I'M RANDY LEVY. I'M A MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENT. TOBY BRILL WILL BE SPEAKING

[2:27:31] NEXT. WE'VE MET WITH A NUMBER OF COUNCIL PEOPLE.

[2:27:36] THERE MAYBE AN IMPORTANCE, OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN ABOUT OFF

[2:27:43] PREMISE SIGNS. AND DONE PROPERLY AS HAS BEEN DONE IN DENVER AND ATLANTA AND

[2:27:49] SAN ANTONIO AND THESE VARIOUS TOWNS, YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF

[2:27:54] MONEY THAT CAN COME BACK TO THE CITY. AND I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT COME UP IN THE COMMENTS OR IN

[2:28:00] THEIR PRESENTATION. IN DENVER, IT'S $1.2 MILLION PER YEAR THAT COMES BACK TO THE CITY

[2:28:08] BY THE PRIVATELY RUN --

[2:28:14] PRIVATE/PUBLIC ENTITY THAT CONTROLS THE BILLBOARD SIGN DISTRICT. SO IT'S A DEEPER DISCUSSION, BUT

[2:28:21] I THINK I WANTED TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS SOME SUBSTANTIAL CASH INVOLVED.

[2:28:29] AND FOR BETTER OR WORSE WHOEVER WANTS TO SWITCH FROM A STATIC SIGN TO A DIGITAL SIGN, IDEALLY

[2:28:37] YOU WOULD CREATE A SIMILAR ENTITY AS THESE OTHER TOWNS HAVE DONE AND MAKE IT A SUBSTANTIAL

[2:28:43] GENERATOR OF FUNDS. >> THANK YOU.

[2:28:48] TOBY BRILL.

[2:29:01] >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TOBY BRILL. MY COLLEAGUE RANDY LEVY WHOM I

[2:29:06] WORK WITH IS A RESIDENT OF WARD 7. I'M A RESIDENT OF WARD 3.

[2:29:12] AND ONE OF OUR OTHER TEAM MEMBERS IS A RESIDENT OF WARD 11. WE HAVE A SMALL COMPANY WHO

[2:29:17] WORKS WITH ACQUISITIONS, DISPOSITIONS, VALUATION, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF OFF

[2:29:23] PREMISE SIGNS. I HAPPEN TO BE A CERTIFIED PROJECT MANAGER. SO WE ACTUALLY CAN DO THE

[2:29:30] INSTALLATION FROM GROUND FLOOR UP. NOW I'M SURE WITHOUT TURNING AROUND AND ASKING FOR HANDS THAT

[2:29:37] EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM WANTS MINNEAPOLIS TO BE A MUCH MORE

[2:29:48] CA CA COSMOPOLITAN CITY THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND YES THROUGH SIGNS OUR CITY CAN TRANSFORM. AND IT'S ABOUT TIME IT DOES.

[2:29:55] IN THIS PARTICULAR TITLE 20

[2:30:01] ORDINANCE CHANGE WHICH I UNDERSTAND TO BE PHASE ONE, AND AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY

[2:30:09] OFF PREMISE SIGNS, FOR OUR PURPOSES THERE'S KIND OF A MIX

[2:30:14] IN THE MATERIALS. SPEAKING ABOUT ON PREMISE SIGNS AND THEN SWITCHING TO OFF PREMISE SIGNS AND THEN

[2:30:20] UNDERSTANDING THIS IS PHASE ONE AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A PHASE TWO. WE NEED A LITTLE BIT CLEARER

[2:30:27] DELINEATION ON WHAT THE TIMELINE IS.

[2:30:32] I BELIEVE YOU HAVE RECEIVED OUR REDLINE OF THIS ORDINANCE.

[2:30:39] IT'S DATED NOVEMBER 3RD. AND I LIKE THE OTHERS KNEW ABOUT THIS ON FRIDAY.

[2:30:46] SO THERE ARE TEN POINTS THAT APPEAR ON PAGE 1 AND 2 OF THE

[2:30:54] REDLINE. WE ASK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CHANGE WHICH -- SO

[2:31:02] MANY DIFFERENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS BE -- >> CAN YOU PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR

[2:31:08] COMMENTS? >> WELL, YOU HAVE THE COMMENTS. WE NEED THE MAPS. WE NEED SIGN DIMENSIONS TO BE

[2:31:13] CHANGED. WE NEED DISPLAY TIMES TO BE ADDRESSED. THE DISTRICTS, THE MANY

[2:31:19] DISTRICTS THAT ARE LISTED NEED TO BE CONSOLIDATED INTO 1, 2, OR 3. THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE SEVEN

[2:31:24] DISTRICTS HERE. BUT TO RANDY'S POINT, AROUND THE COUNTRY IN PART OF THEIR

[2:31:31] EXHIBITS THEY INCLUDE THE WHAT WE CALL SELF-FUNDED ARTS SIGNAGE

[2:31:37] ZONES. AND THEY'RE TAKING THEIR SELF-FUNDED ART SIGNAGE ZONES

[2:31:43] AND TURNING THEM INTO A ACTION

[2:31:50] REQUIREMENT. THERE'S A DISTINCTION, WE'D LIKE THAT BETTER EXPLAINED. >> THANK YOU. LAST WE HAVE DANIELLE KENYAN.

[2:32:01] >> HI, THANK YOU. AND I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME THAT WAS SPENT WORKING ON THIS

[2:32:06] AND BEING PART OF SOME OF THE COMMITTEES THAT GAVE FEEDBACK. I WANT TO JUST REITERATE WHAT

[2:32:12] SOME OF THE OTHERS SAID. HAVING MORE TIME TO LOOK THROUGH THE LARGE DOCUMENT THAT WE JUST RECEIVED WOULD BE GREATLY

[2:32:17] APPRECIATED. AND I ALSO DISAGREE WITH THE MORATORIUM ON BILLBOARDS.

[2:32:24] IT'S NOT CLEAR AND YOU KNOW, ONCE THAT IS PUT OFF TO THE SIDE NOT ALLOWED, IT WILL BE CLOSE TO

[2:32:31] IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE IT ALLOWED AGAIN, RIGHT? WE'RE WELL AWARE OF WHAT THE

[2:32:38] CHALLENGES WITH CHANGING SOMETHING FROM A STATIC TO A DIGITAL BILLBOARD. SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU.

[2:32:44] >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

[2:32:49] COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

[2:32:57] I GUESS I'LL START US OFF IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO. I GAVE A LOT OF MY COMMENTS

[2:33:02] ABOUT THIS AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. I WON'T REPEAT ALL OF THEM. BUT OVERALL I'M PRETTY EXCITED

[2:33:09] ABOUT THIS. AND DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE US

[2:33:15] ADVOCATE TO THE LEGISLATURE, SEE THE CITY ADVOCATE TO THE LEGISLATURE TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET SOME TAXING REVENUE OUT OF

[2:33:21] THIS.

[2:33:27] THE MORATORIUM, I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING BROUGHT UP AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, SARA. WAS THAT INCLUDED AT THAT POINT?

[2:33:33] IT WAS? OKAY. I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ABOUT THAT. I'D BE OPEN TO REVISING THAT IF

[2:33:39] COMMISSIONERS DO HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON THAT. I DO THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR THE PUBLIC.

[2:33:45] THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STAGE OF THIS, THIS HAS TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL BIZ COMMITTEE AND-- BHZ

[2:33:55] COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE FULL COUNCIL. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE THIS PROCESS, THIS IS THE

[2:34:01] INITIAL TIME WHERE YOU GET COMMENTS. AND THEN THE COUNCIL GETS TO LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE

[2:34:07] BROUGHT UP HERE. AND MORE CAREFULLY CONSIDER THEM AT A LATER STAGE. SO YOU'LL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY,

[2:34:14] I WOULD STRONGLY DISCOURAGE US FROM DELAYING THIS FROM MOVING FORWARD. BUT IF ANYONE HAS ANY CHANGES

[2:34:20] THAT THEY WOULD LIKE MAKE, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR THEM.

[2:34:26] COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I HAVE JUST A COMMENT OR A

[2:34:34] CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THE PUBLIC I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL ABOUT HOW THIS PROCEEDS FROM HERE. SO IT GOES TO BHZ AND THERE WILL

[2:34:41] BE NO PUBLIC HEARING AT BHZ, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS BEING HELD AT THE PLANNING COMMISSI.

[2:34:48] >> SO IF STAKEHOLDERS OR PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE WANTED TO HAVE THEIR VOICES

[2:34:53] HEARD, THEY WOULD WANT TO CONTACT THEIR CITY COUNCILLOR SEATED ON BHZ, IS THAT CORRECT?

[2:34:59] >> THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE AUTHOR OF THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN WHO IS ON

[2:35:04] THE BHZ COMMITTEE. >> AND IF THERE WERE TO BE ANY AMENDMENTS BEYOND WHAT WE PASS TODAY IF WE WERE TO PASS IT,

[2:35:10] THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD BY ONE OF THE COUNCILORS SEATED ON BHZ, IS THAT CORRECT?

[2:35:16] >> AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT COULD HAPPEN AT THE BHZ COMMITTEE OR AT THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.

[2:35:22] >> AND I THINK I'VE WATCHED SOME BHZ COMMITTEES AND SOME CITY

[2:35:27] COUNCIL MEETINGS ON YOUTUBES. MORE OFTEN THAT'S DONE AT BHZ CORRECT AND THEN BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY

[2:35:33] TRY TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT MORE QUICKLY AND GET THINGS DONE AND PASSED, IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?

[2:35:39] >> CORRECT. IDEALLY, IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES MADE TO WHAT'S PASSED HERE TODAY, THAT WOULD BE DONE

[2:35:44] IN COMMITTEE. THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL DOES THE MAJORITY OF THEIR WORK.

[2:35:50] AND THEN THE COMMITTEE REPORT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I GUESS WITH THAT

[2:35:56] CLARIFICATION IN MIND, THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME. I HOPE HELPFUL FOR FOLKS HERE.

[2:36:01] I THINK IT'S A GREAT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I THINK THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT

[2:36:06] PERSPECTIVES THAT NEED TO BE HEARD AND SOME CONCERNS THAT

[2:36:11] PERHAPS COULD BE INCORPORATED IN. I DON'T FEEL I HAVE THE DEPTH OF

[2:36:17] UNDERSTANDING IN SIGN ZONING CODE TO DEFER FROM STAFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

[2:36:23] I KNOW HOW MUCH WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS ORDINANCE. I KNOW WE SAW IT AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

[2:36:28] AND I KNOW THAT STAKEHOLDERS HAVE BEEN ENGAGED AND THERE'S BEEN A TON OF WORK BEEN PUT INTO THIS.

[2:36:33] AND TO THINK THAT I HAVE MORE EXPERTISE THAN FOLKS WHO HAVE WORKED ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME WOULD BE UNFAIR. SO I THINK I WILL BE SUPPORTING

[2:36:40] THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER FORNEY AND THEN

[2:36:46] SHEPPARD. >> SINCE I'M LATE TO THE GAME ON ALL OF THIS, I'M DOING A LOT OF CATCH UP. AND I WOULD SAY PROBABLY MY

[2:36:53] BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE BIRD

[2:36:59] SAFETY. AND SO WHEN I SEE THE SHORELAND AND THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

[2:37:05] CORRIDOR HERE AND EVERYTHING, NOT KNOWING ENOUGH ABOUT THIS AND EVERYTHING, THAT TO ME IS

[2:37:11] VERY EM -- IMPERATIVE THAT

[2:37:16] THAT'S PROTECTIVE. I WILL ALSO SAY PERSONALLY I

[2:37:22] HATE BILLBOARDS. I LOVE BEING IN NEW ZEALAND AND MAINE WHERE THERE ARE NO BILLBOARDS BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT

[2:37:27] OUR PURVIEW IS HERE. BUT THE BIRD SAFETY IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. LIKE POLLUTION IS SOMETHING I

[2:37:33] BELIEVE WE SHOULD ADVISE HOWEVER TO RESTRICT.

[2:37:40] THANK YOU. >> I DO WANT TO SAY I THINK IT IS IN OUR PURVIEW, IF YOU WANTED TO PROPOSE SCRATCH THIS AND JUST

[2:37:46] BAN ALL BILLBOARDS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO. >> AS FAR AS BIRD SAFETY?

[2:37:53] >> IF YOU WANT US TO BE NEW ZEALAND OR SOMETHING, THAT IS --

[2:37:59] >> I WOULD LOVE TO ADD ON THAT OUR SHORELAND AND OUR FLYWAYS

[2:38:10] NEED TO BE PROTECTED. I THINK IT'S PARAMOUNT THAT

[2:38:18] YEAH. SO IF IT'S ONLY CERTAIN ZONES, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT

[2:38:23] REALLY TRULY NEEDS TO BE UPHELD.

[2:38:30] >> SO THIS IS A QUASI LEGISLATIVE ITEM. THIS IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION

[2:38:35] TO THE CITY FOR WHAT NEW ORDINANCES THEY SHOULD

[2:38:43] IMPLEMENT. AND IF WE BELIEVED THAT INSTEAD OF THAT, THEY SHOULD JUST CHANGE IT MORE DRAMATICALLY, THAT WOULD

[2:38:48] BE THE TYPE OF THING WE COULD DO. I PERSONALLY DON'T SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I THINK IN SOME AREAS THE BILLBOARDS REALLY ADD A LOT.

[2:38:55] LIKE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THE THEATER DISTRICT, I THINK IS A GREAT AREA HAVING MORE MODEL OF

[2:39:05] TIMES SQUARE, I THINK THAT CAN ADD TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. ALSO I THINK THE CULTURAL CORRIDORS ARE A GREAT IDEA. AND THIS PROPOSAL IS A START NOT

[2:39:11] AN END FOR THINGS LIKE THAT. THE FUTURE COUNCIL COULD EXPAND

[2:39:18] FURTHER. I THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, LIKE THEY'D WANT

[2:39:23] TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT SO THAT WHATEVER SIGNAGE HAPPENS

[2:39:29] IN THE CULTURAL CORRIDORS MATCHES THOSE CORRIDORS. BUT I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA AND I'M GLAD PEOPLE BROUGHT IT UP TONIGHT.

[2:39:36] COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE

[2:39:43] ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN GENERAL, THAT THE MORATORIUM MIGHT NEED SOME FURTHER REVIEW

[2:39:50] THAN JUST -- FOR YOUR LIVELIHOOD. I'M MORE CONCERNED THAT WE SAW

[2:39:55] THIS AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SOME WEEKS AGO AND ALL OF YOU ARE SEEING IT FRIDAY AND THIS IS WHAT YOUR LIVELIHOODS DEPEND ON

[2:40:02] AND I DON'T FIND THAT TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE REVIEW TIME. AND I DON'T THINK THAT MANY OF YOU DO EITHER.

[2:40:08] I WOULD PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO

[2:40:14] COMMUNICATE IN ADVANCE.

[2:40:21] >> ANY OTHER -- COMMISSIONER BAXLEY? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR.

[2:40:27] THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

[2:40:32] I THINK FOR ME THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE PAUSE. I THINK HAVING, JUST GIVING THE

[2:40:41] DYNAMIC SITUATION OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE POLITICAL CYCLE AND AS STAFF HAS STATED, THERE'S

[2:40:49] LITTLE RISK BECAUSE THE CURRENT LEGISLATION IS PRETTY MUCH

[2:40:56] STAGNATED. SO I THINK KEEPING THE SYSTEM AS IS UNTIL WE COME UP WITH A NEW ONE MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE.

[2:41:02] SO FOR ME, I'M IN SUPPORT OF MOVING THIS FORWARD, BUT I'D LIKE TO REMOVE THE TEMPORARY

[2:41:08] PAUSE AS PART OF IT. >> OKAY.

[2:41:15] FOR THAT MOTION, WHAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE?

[2:41:22] >> I WOULD NEED TO PULL THE TEXT UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE WE WOULD WANT TO STRIKE THAT

[2:41:28] PARTICULAR PORTION. SO SARA, IF YOU WANT TO MAYBE OR

[2:41:34] I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD WANT AN ACTUAL MOTION TO

[2:41:41] READ ON THAT? I KNOW WE WOULDN'T WANT A MOTION ON THAT. BUT IF A MOTION WERE TO COME

[2:41:47] FORWARD, HOW BEST TO ARTICULATE THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S CLEAR IN THE DRAFT?

[2:41:53] >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MEYER, COMMISSIONERS. SO THIS I JUST WANT TO REITERATE

[2:42:00] THAT THIS PAUSE IS TRULY EXPECTED TO BE A PAUSE. WE HAVE WHAT WE FEEL IS ONE

[2:42:08] OPPORTUNITY TO REDEVELOP OUR REGULATIONS ONCE THIS CREDIT SYSTEM IS EXPIRED.

[2:42:15] THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE PAUSE

[2:42:21] THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR NEW BILLBOARDS AND CONVERSIONS IS TIED IN WITH THE EXPIRATION OF

[2:42:28] THE CREDIT SYSTEM. AND SO I WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY SORT OF

[2:42:34] ALLOWANCE FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT WE ARE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT IF THE CREDIT SYSTEM EXPIRES, BUT WE ALLOW NEW

[2:42:41] BILLBOARDS, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY SEE A PROLIFERATION OF NEW BILLBOARDS WHERE CREDITS ARE NOT

[2:42:47] ALLOWED AND ALSO OR EXCUSE ME WHERE CREDITS ARE NOT REQUIRED AND ALSO WHERE CREDITS ARE REQUIRED. SO THAT INCLUDES THE WHOLE OF

[2:42:54] OUR DOWNTOWN AND ALSO OUR LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAYS. SO I THINK WE WOULD LIKE A HAND

[2:43:00] IN SHAPING LANGUAGE THAT SEPARATES THOSE TWO ISSUES. IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH

[2:43:09] ALLOWING EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO CONVERT, I THINK WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PAUSE REMAIN

[2:43:14] IN PLACE AND TO GIVE US A YEAR OR WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING,

[2:43:19] THAT'S A QUESTION FOR POLICYMAKERS ABOUT HOW LONG THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEND AT A THE

[2:43:25] LEGISLATURE -- AT THE LEGISLATURE, BUT TO GIVE US THAT TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER NEW SYSTEM COMES INTO PLACE IS

[2:43:31] EFFECTIVE AND ALLOWS US TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE IS THAT THE SUCCESS

[2:43:38] AROUND DISTRICTS LIKE DENVER AND SAN ANTONIO IS THAT THEY DON'T ALLOW BILLBOARDS ANYWHERE ELSE.

[2:43:43] AND SO IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A TRUE REVENUE GENERATION MODEL, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME BUILT UP

[2:43:49] DEMAND. AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DEMAND FOR NEW BILLBOARDS AS WE'VE SEEN FROM MEDIA COMPANIES THAT HAVE COME TO THE

[2:43:56] CITY AND ASKED TO HAVE MORE PROLIFERATION OF BILLBOARDS. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE EXTENT OF

[2:44:01] THE DEMAND THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN DENVER OR SAN ANTONIO WHERE THE ANSWER REALLY IS YOU BUY INTO

[2:44:07] THIS PROGRAM THAT THE CITY HAS CREATED OR YOU DON'T HAVE A BILLBOARD. AND SO THE PAUSE ALSO GIVES US

[2:44:13] THE ABILITY TO CREATE SOME DEMAND AND SOME BUY IN FOR THIS NEW PROGRAM.

[2:44:18] I'LL OPEN IT UP IF MEG HAS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD. BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO

[2:44:24] ENSURE THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF

[2:44:29] TIME LIMIT ON THIS MORATORIUM, WE TRULY DO BELIEF THAT IT IS A

[2:44:36] PAUSE. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF GETTING RID OF BILLBOARDS BUT WE WANT TO BE VERY, VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT

[2:44:42] HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THEM. THAT WE WOULD SEPARATE THAT PROVISION FROM THE EXPIRATION OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM.

[2:44:48] >> YOU ANTICIPATED THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK WHICH IS WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE SOME

[2:44:53] SORT OF TIME LIMIT SO THAT WE REVERT TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE IF WE DON'T SUCCEED?

[2:44:59] DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR

[2:45:04] HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE? >> PRESIDENT MEYER, SO ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS PROCESS THROUGH

[2:45:12] THE CULTURE SCAPE IS TAKING PLACE CURRENTLY.

[2:45:17] A LEGISLATIVE SESSION WOULD BE NEXT YEAR IN 2026. AND SO AT A MINIMUM WE WOULD BE

[2:45:24] LOOKING AT LIKELY A YEAR TO SEE THE RESULT OF THAT LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND THEN TO CREATE AN

[2:45:29] AMENDMENT. BUT IF POLICYMAKERS WERE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO

[2:45:34] PURSUE THAT AMENDMENT, THERE ARE CERTAINLY POLICYMAKERS AT THE

[2:45:41] LEGISLATURE WHO ARE ANTI-BILLBOARD SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE MAY NEED SOME TIME AT

[2:45:46] THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. OUR CITY POLICYMAKERS COULD LOOK FOR MULTIPLE LEGISLATIVE CYCLES.

[2:45:53] SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SAY THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE A YEAR OR IT WOULD ONLY BE TWO YEARS. BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY COGNIZANT

[2:45:59] OF THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A PAUSE THAT HAS NO END.

[2:46:06] YOU COULD SAY A YEAR, YOU COULD SAY TWO YEARS. BUT STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IN TERMS

[2:46:11] OF WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WOULD BE FOR OUR POLICYMAKERS AT THE CITY. >> SARA, I FEEL LIKE THE PINCH

[2:46:20] POINT IS MORE ABOUT, IT'S NOT NEW BILLBOARDS, IT'S THE ABILITY TO MODIFY EXISTING.

[2:46:26] SO WHERE DOES THE STAFF STAND ON A SLIGHT MODIFICATION, WHERE

[2:46:34] ALTERATIONS WOULD BE ALLOWED BUT NO NEW BILLBOARDS WOULD BE ALLOWED? >> YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

[2:46:39] I DO THINK IT GOES BACK TO HAVING SOME OF THIS DEMAND AND ALLOWING TIME FOR US TO CREATE

[2:46:44] THIS NEW SYSTEM. SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE BUILT IN

[2:46:50] SOME QUESTION AND SOME INSECURITY WITH EXISTING BILLBOARD OWNERS.

[2:46:55] AND IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT A PAUSE FOR CONVERSIONS OR FOR NEW BILLBOARDS WE WILL LIKELY SEE A

[2:47:01] LOT OF CONVERSIONS PRIOR TO A NEW SYSTEM COMING INTO PLACE. SO I THINK WE WILL HAVE THE LACK

[2:47:09] OF THE BENEFIT OF THE PENT UP DEMAND. AND I THINK WE WILL HAVE A LACK OF BUY IN FROM STAKEHOLDERS WHO

[2:47:16] DON'T NEED TO ENTER INTO THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR

[2:47:23] CONVERSIONS. I THINK A PAUSE IS HELPFUL FOR THE CITY TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS

[2:47:28] AND HAVING SOME ALIGNMENT WITH OUR DOWNTOWN VISIONING. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

[2:47:34] >> I THINK SO. >> STAFF WOULD PREFER THAT THERE BE AN OVERALL PAUSE.

[2:47:39] >> YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE ANGST AROUND THAT? >> I CAN, ABSOLUTELY.

[2:47:45] >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, MEG McMANN, PLANNING

[2:47:53] DIRECTOR. I WANT TO REITERATE BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING

[2:48:00] BILLBOARDS. THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD MAYBE TALK ABOUT A CARVE OUT THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY AROUND MODIFICATIONS

[2:48:06] AND WHAT THAT MEANS. I THINK THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS AROUND THE DIGITIZATION, BUT THE SIZE, THE ANGLE, THE HOW IT'S

[2:48:14] CONFIGURED, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY LOTS OF AREAS THAT WE COULD MAYBE FIND SOME LANGUAGE

[2:48:21] THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME MODIFICATIONS THAT MEET SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM EXISTING

[2:48:27] BILLBOARD OWNERS THAT REALLY I THINK THE PRIMARY ISSUES ARE NEW BILLBOARDS AND THEN THE

[2:48:33] DIGITIZATION. >> THANKS, MEG. I THINK ANY TWEAKING WOULD BE HELPFUL. OBVIOUSLY PROBABLY THE BIG PUSH

[2:48:40] IS TOWARDS DIGITIZATION. I THINK THAT'S COMING QUICKLY. AND SO I GUESS IF WE'RE, THE

[2:48:50] OTHER LEVER WOULD BE TO REALLY TRY TO PUT A TIMEFRAME ON THIS. I THINK IT FEELS TOO OPEN ENDED.

[2:48:57] LIKE CAN WE GIVE OURSELVES A TARGET DATE AND HIT IT AS OPPOSED TO A LITTLE SQUISH

[2:49:02] THERE. CAN WE ESTABLISH A DATE? AND SAY BY A CERTAIN DATE WE

[2:49:08] WILL HAVE THIS RECTIFIED? I THINK THAT MAY BE HELP SOME OF THE CONCERNS.

[2:49:13] IT'S JUST TOO OPEN ENDED, RIGHT? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER

[2:49:19] BAXLEY, I THINK PERHAPS STAFF MIGHT REQUEST A LITTLE TIME TO THINK THROUGH THAT AND TALK WITH OUR POLICYMAKERS ABOUT WHAT

[2:49:24] THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. WE REALLY HEARD CLEARLY FROM THE POLICYMAKERS THEY WERE NOT

[2:49:30] INTERESTED IN SEEING A PROLIFERATION OF NEW BILLBOARDS AND THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION AROUND

[2:49:36] FINDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVENUE GENERATION. AND SO UNDER THAT GUIDANCE, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND LIKE

[2:49:43] HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT, IF WE AREN'T SUCCESSFUL AT THE LEGISLATURE FOR EXAMPLE, DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S NO INTEREST IN

[2:49:49] THIS ANYMORE? DOES IT MEAN THAT THERE'S INTEREST JUST WITHOUT THE REVENUE COMPONENT.

[2:49:54] AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE. BUT I THINK GENERALLY OUR

[2:50:01] UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A STRONG INTEREST IN PURSUING THIS

[2:50:06] LEGISLATIVE FIX AND MOVING FORWARD WITH AN EXPANSION OF OUR

[2:50:12] CURRENT BILLBOARD ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IN TERMS OF ITS FOOTPRINT. AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR SOME

[2:50:18] TIME TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THE SPECIFICS AROUND THAT. >> SO I'M PERSUADED TO NOT ALTER

[2:50:25] THE PAUSE, BUT MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO CONSIDER EVEN IF IT'S LIKE A FIVE YEAR TIMELINE

[2:50:32] WHICH WOULD GIVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THE EXISTING SESSION AND TWO ELECTION CYCLES AFTER

[2:50:41] THAT, AT LEAST THEN IT WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY OPEN ENDED.

[2:50:50] COMMISSIONER FORNEY -- AM I MISSING YOU? OH I'M SORRY. >> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE ME.

[2:50:56] >> I APOLOGIZE. >> THAT'S OKAY. A FEW THINGS.

[2:51:01] THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK. I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT ANY WAY THAT WE ACTIVATE SPACES IS A BENEFIT TO

[2:51:07] OUR CITY. AND WE ARE VERY MUCH IN THE BUSINESS AT THE COUNTY, THE CITY, MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

[2:51:15] LOOKING AT REVENUE GENERATION TOOLS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS BUT LOOKING AT NEW SOURCES OF

[2:51:20] REVENUE. SO I SUPPORT THAT. FOR THE CONVERSATIONS AROUND DATES, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION

[2:51:26] IN 2026 ENDS MAY 18, 2026. THAT'S A DATE. IF WE WANT TO EXTEND THAT, WE

[2:51:31] CAN LOOK UP THE DATE FOR THE END OF THE 2027 -- BUT I DO THINK A PAUSE IS NOT A PAUSE IF THERE IS

[2:51:38] NO END DATE. SO I SUPPORT LOOKING AT A DATE RIGHT NOW. I ALSO WANT TO CALL OUT ONE OF

[2:51:44] THE TESTIFIERS MENTIONED PUBLIC PAINTED SIGNS.

[2:51:50] I LOVE THAT AND I REMEMBER SAYING THAT AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THAT IS AN EXEMPTION. I WANT TO JUST CONFIRM WITH YOU

[2:51:59] THAT PAINTED BUSINESS SIGNS, LIKE PAINTED ON THE SIDE OF A BUILDING IS EXEMPT FROM ALL OF THAT MEANING THAT IS A SIGN THAT

[2:52:05] CAN BE DONE AND CONTINUE? CONFIRMED? >> YES, COMMISSIONER CONLEY,

[2:52:11] THAT IS CORRECT FOR ON PREMISES SIGNS. SO A PAINTED WALL SIGN WOULD

[2:52:16] NEED TO BE RELATED TO A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY. >> THAT'S GREAT AND I LOVE THAT. I ALSO AM INTERESTED IN ALONG

[2:52:23] LAKE STREET WE'VE GOT SOME BEAUTIFUL MURALS. WE'VE GOT A BEAUTIFUL CORRIDOR. AND THERE'S BILLBOARDS AND

[2:52:28] THERE'S ALL OF THE THINGS. AND LAKE STREET IS A CULTURAL CORRIDOR. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO

[2:52:34] ACTIVATE LAKE STREET FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND SO I JUST WONDER HOW

[2:52:39] THE FOCUS ON DOWNTOWN WILL PLAY WELL THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR PLAY IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY. WE HEARD SOMEONE TALK ABOUT

[2:52:45] SMALL BUSINESSES OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN AND WHAT THOSE RAMIFICATIONS COULD BE. SO PERHAPS YOU COULD SPEAK TO

[2:52:51] THAT NOW JUST SO THAT I HAVE CLARIFICATION ON HOW THIS MIGHT IMPACT NEW BUSINESSES.

[2:52:57] WE'RE STILL REBUILDING LAKE STREET FIVE YEARS SINCE IT BURNED. AND SO AS WE REBUILD, THERE'S AN

[2:53:04] INFLUX OF PUBLIC ART, THERE'S AN INFLUX OF PAINTED SIGNS ON BUILDINGS, THERE'S AN INFLUX OF

[2:53:09] NEW BILLBOARDS COMING UP BECAUSE THERE'S NEW BUSINESSES THAT WILL BE BUILT OR ARE ABOUT TO BE

[2:53:16] FINISHED. SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO ME ABOUT HOW THIS, THE LANGUAGE FOR

[2:53:21] THE SIGN ORDINANCE EXPANDS FROM DOWNTOWN AND THEN TWO, I WOULD

[2:53:27] PROPOSE A DATE OF THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT, MAY 18TH, THE REASON I SAY THAT

[2:53:33] IS BECAUSE AT THE COUNTY WE'RE WORKING RIGHT NOW TO FIND PEOPLE TO CARRY BILLS. WE ARE WORKING THROUGH OUR IGR

[2:53:40] TEAMS TO CRAFT OUR PLATFORM FOR THE STATE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR. AND IT'S REVENUE GENERATION

[2:53:45] TOOLS AMONG A HOST OF OTHER THINGS. SO CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING NOW ON WHO COULD CARRY WHAT.

[2:53:53] IT ALL DEPENDS ON RELATIONSHIPS THAT YOU HAVE WITH YOUR OTHER

[2:53:59] POLICYMAKERS. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION OR A YEAR FROM THAT END DATE AS

[2:54:05] POSSIBLE DATES TO MAKE IT A TRUE PAUSE AND NOT AN OPEN ENDED ONE. AND THEN ANY CLARIFICATION YOU

[2:54:11] CAN GIVE ME ON HOW THIS IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER

[2:54:19] CONLEY. IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC DATE, STAFF WOULD LIKE SOME TIME FOLLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE

[2:54:25] SESSION TO CRAFT THESE REGULATIONS. SO I THINK A YEAR FOLLOWING THE

[2:54:31] LEGISLATIVE SESSION WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US IN TERMS OF DOING THIS ENGAGEMENT WORK. BUT ABSOLUTELY OUR IGR STAFF IS

[2:54:39] IN CONVERSATION WITH NOT ONLY OTHER COMMUNITIES BUT WITH STATE

[2:54:44] LEGISLATURE ABOUT WHO COULD POSSIBLY BRING THIS FORWARD AND IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S TENABLE AT THE STATE

[2:54:50] LEGISLATURE. IN TERMS OF BROADENING THE SCOPE

[2:54:56] OF THIS AMENDMENT, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM POLICYMAKERS, SO FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OR FROM CITY

[2:55:02] COUNCIL TO LOOK AT SPECIFIC AREAS. THE DIRECTION OF THIS SPECIFIC ITEM WAS FOCUSED ON DOWNTOWN.

[2:55:09] BUT ABSOLUTELY STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF DIRECTED FROM OUR

[2:55:16] POLICYMAKERS SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHT GIVEN TO OUR OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT COULD ALSO USE

[2:55:21] ATTENTION REGARDING SIGNS. >> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A

[2:55:27] MOTION? DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY, COMMISSIONER

[2:55:32] GORDON? OKAY. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO

[2:55:39] FORWARD THIS WITH THE ADDITIONAL CLAUSE OF A ADDITION TIME FRAME

[2:55:45] BY A YEAR AFTER THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2026. >> SO LIKE JUNE OF 27 MAYBE?

[2:55:53] >> YEAH. >> OKAY.

[2:56:01] DOES THAT LANGUAGE WORK, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD MEET THAT INTENT,

[2:56:07] KIMBERLY? >> I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE. >> OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

[2:56:14] >> SO JUST TO CONFIRM THE ACTUALLY DATE WOULD BE JUNE -- >> JUNE OF 2027.

[2:56:23] >> JUNE 1ST, JUNE -- >> SORRY. JUNE WHAT DAY OF THE MONTH?

[2:56:30] >> ON OR BEFORE. >> ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1, 2027?

[2:56:40] OKAY. >> DID YOU SECOND THAT? >> I WILL. BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, IT'S TO APPROVE AS

[2:56:47] RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE PROVISIONAL DATE OR WITH THE DATE OF ON OR BEFORE JUNE OF

[2:56:54] 2027? >> CORRECT, COMMISSIONER. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION ON IT?

[2:57:05] ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY, SO I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY.

[2:57:11] >> AYE. >> FORNEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON.

[2:57:17] >> AYE. >> SHEPPARD. >> AYE. >> WAGNER.

[2:57:23] >> AYE. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER. >> AYE.

[2:57:29] >> THERE ARE SEVEN AYES. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL. THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR

[2:57:36] THE EVENING. WE HAVE NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS WEEK, NO AGENDA ITEMS. OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION

[2:57:42] MEETING WILL BE NOVEMBER 17TH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM

[2:57:47] STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? >> JUST ONE QUICK UPDATE. IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR SO

[2:57:52] TYPICALLY OUR CALENDAR FOLLOWS THE CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR, BUT BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ADOPTING

[2:58:00] O ONE UNTIL JANUARY, WE'RE GOING TO BRING A PARTIAL CALENDAR TO THE 11/17 MEETING.

[2:58:06] IT WILL INCLUDE DATES FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, AND THEN WE'LL BRING A FULL CALENDAR TO YOU HOPEFULLY END OF JANUARY,

[2:58:12] EARLY FEBRUARY TO ADOPT FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2026. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.